Skip to main content

Full text of "Land and Water Conservation Fund Act amendments : hearing before the Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks, and Forests of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, United States Senate, One hundredth Congress, first session on S. 735 ... July 14, 1987"

See other formats


S. Hrg. 100-253 



LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION 
FUND ACT AMENDMENTS 



HEARING 



BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PAEKS AND FORESTS 



OF THE 



COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS 
FIRST SESSION 



ON 



S. 735 

TO AMEND THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 



JULY 14, 1987 





DOCS 



77-689 



search 
brary. 



Printed for the use of the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
WASHINGTON : 1987 




.'tf ^S^i0-^' 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office 
U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 



w 






S. Hrg. 100-253 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION 
FUND ACT AMENDMENTS 



HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PAEKS AND FORESTS 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY AND NATUEAL RESOUECES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDREDTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

ON 

S. 735 

TO AMEND THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT OF 1965, 

AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES 



JULY 14, 1987 




Printed for the use of the 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 




U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
77-689 WASHINGTON : 1987 ff ^r^-'J ^^^' 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales OfTice 
^^^ U.S. Government Printing OfTice, Washington, DC 20402 

ircT wor . 4 Y Du^OSiumY 

iry I 



Boston ^yblic Library 
Boston, MA 02116 



COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, Louisiana, Chairman 

DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas JAMES A. McCLURE, Idaho 

WENDELL H. FORD, Kentucky MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon 

HOWARD M. METZENBAUM, Ohio LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jr., Connecticut 

JOHN MELCHER, Montana PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

BILL BRADLEY, New Jersey MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado DON NICKLES, Oklahoma 

WYCHE FOWLER, Jr., Georgia CHIC HECHT, Nevada 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota DANIEL J. EVANS, Washington 

Daryl H. Owen, Staff Director 

D. Michael Harvey, Chief Counsel 

Frank M. Cushing, Staff Director for the Minority 

Gary G. Ellsworth, Chief Counsel for the Minority 



Subcommittee on Pubuc Lands, National Parks and Forests 

DALE BUMPERS, Arkansas, Chairman 
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MELCHER, Montana MALCOLM WALLOP, Wyoming 

BILL BRADLEY, New Jersey LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jr., Connecticut 

TIMOTHY E. WIRTH, Colorado MARK O. HATFIELD, Oregon 

WYCHE FOWLER, Jr. Georgia PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, Alaska 

CHIC HECHT, Nevada 
J. Bennett Johnston and James A. McClure are Ex Officio Members of the Subcommittee 

Thomas B. Williams, Senior Professional Staff Member 
Beth Norcross, Professional Staff Member 

(n) 



^H"nv. 



ii>(j > lou ,^ 



CONTENTS 



Page 
S. 735 11 

STATEMENTS 

Berryman, Jack H., executive vice president. International Association of 

Fish and Wildlife Agencies 105 

Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico 7 

Bumpers, Hon. Dale, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas 4 

Dunlop, George S., Assistant Secretary, Department of Agriculture 29 

Horn, William P., Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, De- 
partment of the Interior 15 

Jarvis, T. Destry, vice president, conservation policy, National Parks and 

Conservation Association 87 

Johnston, Hon. J. Bennett, a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana 1 

Katz, John W., director of State/Federal relations and special counsel to Gov. 
Steve Cowper, State of Alaska; accompanied by G. Thomas Koester, assist- 
ant attorney general. State of Alaska 51 

Koester, G. Thomas, assistant attorney general. State of Alaska 57 

Mahoney, Tim, Washington representative, Sierra Club and chairman, Alaska 

Coalition 94 

Murkowski, Hon. Frank H., a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska 27 

Stevens, Hon. Ted, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alaska 8 

Tindall, Barry S., director of public affairs. National Recreation and Park 

Association 74 

Wallop, Hon. Malcolm, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming 48 

Williamson, Lonnie L., vice president. Wildlife Management Institute 100 

APPENDIX 
Additional material submitted for the record 113 

(m) 



LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND ACT 

AMENDMENTS 



TUESDAY, JULY 14, 1987 

U.S. Senate, 
Subcommittee on Public Lands, 

National Parks and Forests, 
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m. in room 
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. J. Bennett Johnston, 
chairman, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. J. BENNETT JOHNSTON, A U.S. 
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

The Chairman. The hearing will come to order. The purpose of 
the hearing this afternoon is to receive testimony on S. 735, a bill 
which I introduced on March 12 to amend the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund Act of 1965. 

S. 735 would create a special account within the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. This account would have two funding sources: 
a portion, that is 25 percent, of the revenues due the United States 
from future oil and gas leasing activities in units of the National 
Wildlife Refuge System; and $160 million annually to be drawn 
from the authorized but unappropriated balance of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. This balance currently totals some $5.34 
billion. 

Monies credited into this special account from these two sources 
are to be made available for high priority federal land acquisition 
projects. These projects are to be identified by the appropriate land 
managing agencies on an annual basis through the submission of 
priority lists to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. 

These Committees would then allocate the funds from the special 
account to the agencies in accordance with the list and the amount 
of money available. Should the Appropriations Committees fail to 
allocate these funds, the Secretary of the Treasury would then be 
authorized and directed to make these monies available directly to 
the land managing agencies for land acquisition projects on the list 
in accordance with the formula provided in the bill. 

This funding mechanism in effect is an automatic appropriation, 
so that if the Congress did not act to appropriate then the agencies 
would get $160 million, which is the average amount given to these 
agencies over the last seven years, plus these funds from the wild- 
life refuges, and they would be automatically — not automatically 

(1) 



spent, but automatically made available and spent on these priori- 
ty lists. 

And of course, the Congress could change the priority list. 
Indeed, they could repeal it altogether each year. But failing Com- 
mittee action, they would be spent on the priority list. 

With regard to the remainder of the revenues generated from 
future leasing on wildlife refuges, I should note that 50 percent 
would be made available to the state in which the refuge is located 
and 25 percent into the Treasury. 

Having stated briefly what this bill does do, let me state what 
the bill does not do. 

S. 735 does not open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil 
and gas leasing. I should say that over and over again, maybe two 
or three times. Nor does it indicate any preference, any inclination, 
any intention, any tilt, any direction, any prejudice in favor of that 
oil and gas leasing. 

It does not open any unit of the wildlife refuge system to oil and 
gas leasing. In fact, this bill does not make any judgment whatso- 
ever of any kind or nature respecting these leasing activities. 

In addition, S. 735 does not affect the current disposition of reve- 
nues pursuant to existing oil and gas leasing in refuges. It does not 
reach back and impact the revenue sharing arrangements within 
the federal government, the states, or units of local governments 
which are funded pursuant to existing oil and gas activities in ref- 
uges. 

Finally, S. 735 is not designed to be a comprehensive reform of 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. I am aware that other 
proposals, including the recommendations of the President's Com- 
mission on the Great Outdoors, which Commission I have the 
honor to serve on, has suggested that major and fundamental 
changes be made in the fund, and I think we ought to look at those 
on another day. 

Many of these proposals have merit and I am sure that Congress 
will address them. The bill before us today, however, is designed to 
deal with a much more specific issue, attempting to reduce the 
backlog of authorized but unacquired lands inside federal parks, 
refuges, and forests. 

I believe that the approach embodied in S. 735 makes sense, that 
it is feasible and workable, and that it will enhance the nation's 
recreation and wildlife estate. I am prepared to work with those 
who want to improve the bill and look forward to the Committee's 
expeditious consideration. 

At this point, I will place a copy of the bill in the hearing record 
and am pleased to welcome Assistant Secretary Horn of the De- 
partment of Interior and Assistant Secretary Dunlop of the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture as our first witnesses today. 

And let me say, later we are going to have people from the envi- 
ronmental community. I want to repeat again, this does not in any 
way prejudice what we will do on ANWR. But just in case this Con- 
gress or some other Congress does make that decision in whole or 
in part, it would certainly be a nice thing to have a source of reve- 
nues to deal with what is a great unmet need and has been a great 
unmet need since I have been in the Congress for 15 years. 



So, Secretary Horn, we are pleased to welcome you and Secretary 
Dunlop to the Committee, and please proceed. Both of your state- 
ments will be put into the record as if read in full. You may sum- 
marize or do whatever you like. 

[The prepared statements of Senator Bumpers, Senator Binga- 
man, Senator Stevens and the text of S. 735 follow:] 



STATEMENT BY THE HONORABLE DALE BUMPERS 

The purpose of the h'earing this afternoon is to consider S. 
735 - a bill to amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 
1965. This measure, introduced by Senator Johnston, would seek 
to make additional funds available to acquire lands authorized by 
Congress for inclusion in the National Park, Refuge, Wilderness 
and Forest Systems. 

Primary funding would be derived from a portion of future 
revenues due the United States from oil and gas leasing inside 
units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The bill provides 
that 50 percent of such revenues go to the state in which the 
refuge is located; 25 percent to the federal Treasury; and 25 
percent to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Additional funds, $160 million per year, would also be 
available to be derived from the authorized but unappropriated 
balance of the Land and Water Conservation Fund - a balance which 
currently totals some $5.3 billion. 

Together, these monies would be deposited into a special 
account to be used to reduce the backlog of authorized but 
unfunded land acquisition projects. 

I am aware of some of the concerns that have been raised 
regarding this measure by several conservation organizations, the 



- 2 - 



State of Alaska, and others. However, I am hopeful that those 
concerns can be addressed and that the Committee will consider 
this proposal carefully. 



statement of Senator Jeff Bingaman 
Land and Water Conservation Fund 

July ^^, 1987 



I thank the Chairman for scheduling this hearing to 
consider his legislation to provide a dedicated fund for 
federal land acquisition that would be supported in part by 
revenues form oil and gas development in national wildlife 
refuges. I appreciate the strong leadership he has provided 
in support of the Land and Water Conservation Fund over the 
years. This is an issue for which I have an abiding 
interest. 



Background of LWCF 



New 

Cons 

was 

land 

faci 

fede 

Mana 

and 

gove 

Cons 

for 

area 

wild 



As 
Mexi 
erva 
firs 

acq 
liti 
ral 
geme 
50/5 
rnme 
erva 
publ 
s an 
life 



a result o 
CO Senator 
tion Congr 
t created 
uisition, 
es. Throu 
level (to 
nt, Forest 
matching 
nts. More 
tion Fund 
ic outdoor 
d addition 
areas and 



f the leade 

Clinton P. 

ess, the La 

in 1964 to 

planning an 

gh the Fund 

the Nations 

Service, a 

grants are 

specif ical 

provides fo 

recreation 

s to alread 

other area 



rship and foresight of former 

Anderson and the efforts of the 
nd and Water Conservation Fund 
provide a source of funds for 
d development of recreation 
, money is available at the 
1 Park Service, Bureau of Land 
nd Fish and Wildlife Service) 

provided to state and local 
ly, the Land and Water 
r protection of lands and water 
, including acquisition of new 
y established parks, forests, 
s . 



One of the major philosophies behind this Fund was that 
as the nation depleted its finite oil and gas reserves, a 
portion of the income from that extraction should be 
reinvested for public benefit by purchasing and preserving 
other natural and cultural resources. 



The Land and Water Conservation Fund has proven 
extremely successful and represents the best in public 
policy. It has resulted in the preservation of many areas of 
natural and historic significance. Almost three million 
acres of federal land have been acquired with $3 billion 
since the origin of the Fund. In addition, almost $3 billion 
has been appropriated and matched by the states for planning, 
development and acquisition designed to improve the quantity 
and quality of outdoor recreation in this country. New 
Mexico has benefited significantly over the years from the 



statement of Senator Jeff Bingaman 
Land and Water Conservation Fund 
July 14, 1987 
Page 2 

fund through the acquisition of new park units, wildlife 
refuges and outdoor recreation areas. 

Johnston Legislation 

The Legislation we consider today would create a 
mechanism for providing a dedicated source of revenues for 
the fund. Under S. 735, 25 percent of all leasing fees, 
bonuses and royalties from oil and gas wells in wildlife 
refuges would be deposited in a new account to be established 
within the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In addition, 
the new account would receive $160 million annually from the 
authorized by unappropriated balances of the Fund, now 
estimated at about $5 billion. All of the money deposited in 
the special account would then automatically become available 
to the four main federal land managing agencies. 

Some may argue that this approach is not the best method 
for financing the fund. However, I appreciate Senator 
Johnston's effort to explore alternatives and I look forward 
to working with him on this issue. I was also pleased that 
the President's bi-partisan Commission on Americans Outdoors 
recognized the importance of the Fund by recommending the 
establishment of a trust fund with a permanent appropriation 
of $1 billion. 

I am interested in pursuing all alternatives that can 
provide a stable and permanent source of funding for the 
important purpose of federal land acquisition. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony presented today. 



8 



TESTIMONY OF SENATOR TED STEVENS 

ON S. 735 

BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS, 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 



JU 



ly 14, 1987 y^ 



ry^ ^UO--^^^-^- 



y 

Mr. Chairman, as the senior Senator from Alaska and as 
one intimately involved in Alaska's battle to achieve 
Statehood in the 1950's, I must oppose S. 735. 

The Alaska Statehood Act is a compact between the people 
of Alaska and the federal government. Alaska accepted 
conditions set forth by Congress in exchange for benefits 
conferred by the Act. The reallocation of public land 
revenues proposed in S. 735 would deny Alaska one of those 
benefits. 

Before Alaska became a State, the federal government 
agreed to dedicate 90 percent of the revenues from oil and 
gas leasing on federal lands to Alaska. The Mineral Leasing 
Act of 1920 entitles other states to 50 percent of of those 
revenues in direct payments. Of the remainder, 40 percent 
is placed in the Reclamation Fund, which is dedicated to 
projects in the 17 western public land States. 

Alaska does not have access to the Reclamation Fund. 
This fact was a major reason for providing Alaska with 
direct payment of the entire 90 percent revenue share. Also 
important was Congress' recognition that an overwhelming 
percentage of Alaska was, and would continue to be, 
federally owned and that federal lands would not contribute 



9 



much to the economic development of Alaska. This insight 
was validated by the passage of the Alaska National Interest 
Lands Conservation Act in 1980, which closed more than a 
third of Alaska to most forms of development. 

The 90 percent formula for Alaska has been waived only 
once. When the National Petroleum Reserve - Alaska (NPRA) 
was opened to leasing, Alaska agreed to accept only a 50 
percent share of federal oil and gas revenues. NPRA, 
however, was reserved from oil and gas leasing by the 
federal government for its energy potential prior to 
Statehood. This fact justified a different treatment of 
revenues derived from the Reserve. 

The main target of the bill before the subcommittee is 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) , formerly the 
Arctic National Wildlife Range. Unlike NPRA, the Range was 
open to oil and gas leasing. Also, the Range was created a 
year after Alaska became a State. Therefore, the rationale 
used to justify the reduction of Alaska's share of federal 
revenues from NPRA cannot be applied to ANWR. 

We Alaskans have zealously defended our rights under the 
Statehood Act since 1959. We have waived those rights only 
on rare occasions, such as the passage of the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act in 1971. After consultation with 
Alaska's legislature, Alaska's governor joined our 
Congressional Delegation in agreeing to voluntarily return 
lands, the selection of which had received tentative 
approval from the Department of the Interior, in order that 
those lands could be conveyed by Congress to Alaska's Native 
people. 



10 



S. 735's basic goal -- acquisition of important 
recreational, scenic, and habitat lands by the federal 
government -- is sound. It would achieve its goal, however, 
by denying Alaska one of the fundamental benefits conferred 
by the Statehood Act without offering the State appropriate 
compensation. There must be a fairer approach, and I hope 
that we will be able to work with the distinguished Chairman 
of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, who is the 
sponsor of S. 735 and a good friend of Alaska, to identify 
that approach. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



11 



100th congress 

IST Session 



S. 735 



To amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, and for other 

purposes. 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

March 12, 1987 

Mr. Johnston introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 
to the Conunittee on Energy and Natural Resources 



A BILL 

To amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 

4 as amended, is further amended by adding the following new 

5 title: 

6 "TITLE m— SPECIAL ACCOUNT 

7 "Sec. 301. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of 

8 law, all revenues received from competitive bids, sales, bo- 

9 nuses, royalties, rents, fees, interest charges or other income 
10 derived from the leasing of oil and gas resources within units 



12 



2 

1 of the National Wildlife Refuge System pursuant to leases 

2 issued after the date of enactment of this title shall be distrib- 

3 uted as follows: 

4 "(1) 50 per centum to the State in which the 

5 refuge unit is located; 

6 "(2) 25 per centum deposited into the fund; and 

7 "(3) 25 per centum to miscellaneous receipts in 

8 the Treasury. 

9 "(b)(1) Moneys deposited into the fund pursuant to sub- 

10 section (a) shall be credited to a special account within the 

11 fund. In addition, there shall also be deposited into this spe- 

12 cial account, $160,000,000 per annum to be derived from 

13 those moneys comprising the authorized but unappropriated 

14 balance of the fund. 

15 "(2) Funds deposited into the special account shall be 

16 available, without further appropriation, for Federal purposes 

17 as provided in section 7 of this Act and shall be allocated in 

18 accordance with this title. 

19 "Sec. 302. (a) At the time of the submission of the 

20 President's budget, each Federal land managing agency eligi- 

21 ble to receive moneys from the fund shall provide the Com- 

22 mittee on Appropriations of the United States House of Rep- 

23 resentatives and the United States Senate with a list, in de- 

24 scending order of priority, of land acquisition projects (herein- 

25 after in this title referred to as the 'priority Ust'). 

S 735 IS 



13 



3 

1 "(b) The priority lists shall be prepared by the Directors 

2 of the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, 

3 Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, and 

4 the Chief of the Forest Service, United States Department of 

5 Agriculture, and shall reflect their best professional judgment 

6 regarding the land acquisition priorities of such bureau or 

7 agency. 

8 "(c) In preparing such lists the following factors shall be 

9 considered: the amount of money anticipated to be made 

10 available in any one year; the availability of land appraisal 

11 and other information necessary to complete the acquisition 

12 in a timely manner; the potential adverse impacts on the 

13 park, wilderness, wildlife refuge or other such unit which 

14 might result if the acquisition is not undertaken; and such 

15 other factors as the land managers deem appropriate. 

16 "Sec. 303. (a) The Secretary of the Treasury shall 

17 notify the Appropriations Committees of the Congress on an 

18 annual basis as to the amounts available for allocation within 

19 the special account estabUshed pursuant to this title. 

20 "(b) The Appropriations Committees shall allocate the 

21 funds from the special account in accordance with the priority 

22 Usts submitted pursuant to section 302(a) unless such lists are 

23 specifically modified in appropriation Acts or reports accom- 

24 panying such Acts. 



S 735 IS 



14 



4 

1 "(c) In allocating funds from the special account among 

2 land managing agencies the Appropriations Committees shall 

3 ensure that each agency receives a fair and equitable share in 

4 accordance with land acquisition needs, congressional direc- 

5 tives, and historical patterns of distribution of the fund: Pro- 

6 vided, That no agency shall receive more than 50 per centum 

7 of the funds available from the special account in any one 

8 year. 

9 "(d) In the event that the Appropriations Committees 

10 fail to allocate the funds from the special account, the Secre- 

1 1 tary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to make such 

12 funds directly available to the land managing agencies to be 

13 used solely for land acquisition projects on the respective pri- 

14 ority lists in accordance with the following formula: 

15 "40 per centum to the National Park Service; 

16 "40 per centum to the Fish and Wildlife Service; 

17 "15 per centum to the Forest Service; and 

18 "5 per centum to the Bureau of Land Manage- 

19 ment.". 

O 



S 735 IS 



15 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM P. HORN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR 
FISH AND WILDLIFE AND PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTE- 
RIOR 

Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me summa- 
rize my statement. 

Obviously, I am pleased to testify today and appear before you on 
this subject. I think that these topics are most important, particu- 
larly the future of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and in 
particular your bill, S. 735. 

I think it is worth noting that the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund Act of 1965 was initially based on the notion that outdoor 
recreation activities be financed largely on a pay-as-you-go basis 
from fees collected from the direct beneficiaries, the users of the 
Federal lands and waters. 

In 1968, the user sources of funding were expanded to include re- 
ceipts from the Outer Continental Shelf leasing program, with an 
authorization ceiling that was initially established at $200 million 
and later expanded in 1979 to $900 million annually. 

In recent years the budgetary situation has resulted in limited 
requests from the Administration for appropriations from the fund, 
and action by the Congress providing annual appropriations far 
below the $900 million authorization. 

I think it is important to note in discussing this issue and others 
related to LWCF that it is not a genuine fund and there is no un- 
appropriated group of dollars sitting somewhere in an account 
available for disposition. We think the best analogy is a Mastercard 
or a Visa card, in that we have a credit line of up to $900 million, 
and if Congress chooses to expend those dollars it of course has to 
do so with an appropriation. 

This does not come from any type of specified fund where bal- 
ances sit and are available in the future if not expended. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Horn follows:] 



16 



TESTIMONY OF WILLLAM P. HORN, ASSISTANT SECRETARY FDR FISH AND WILDLIFE AND 
PARKS, DEPARTMENT OF IHE INTERIOR, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE Oti PUBLIC LANDS, 
NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS OF TOE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL 
RESOURCES, CaCERNIM; S. 735, AMENDING THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUm 

Mr. Chairman, I am William P. Horn, Assistant Secretary for Fish and 

Wildlife and Parks of the Department of the Interior. I am pleased to be 

able to testify today on a subject which is quite important to me — the 

future of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and in particular Chairman 

Johnston's bill, S. 735, to provide a constant level and source of funds 

for Federal land acquisition. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 was enacted to provide 
Federal assistance and funds to the States for the planning, acquisition 
and development of land and water areas, and to provide funds for federal 
acquisition of lands. The fund initially was based on the notion that 
outdoor recreation opportunities be financed largely on a "pay as you go" 
basis from fees collected from the direct beneficiaries — the users of 
Federal recreational lands and waters. Originally, the fund consisted of 
revenues derived from several sources: entrance fees collected at Federal 
recreational areas, receipts from the sale of surplus property, and the 
motorboat fuel tax. In 1968, these sources were expanded to include 
receipts derived from the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, with the 
authorization ceiling initially established at $200 million and later 
(1979) expanded to $900 million annually. Unappropriated authority is 
carried forward for possible future appropriation. Authorization for the 
annual $900 million allocation under the Fund expires at the end of fiscal 
year 1989. 

In recent years, the budgetary situation has resulted in limited requests 



17 



fron the Administration for appropriations from the Fund, and action by the 
Congress providing annual appropriations far below the $900 million 
authorization, resulting in a cumulative balance in the authorization of 
approximately $5.1 billion. May I point out, Mr. Chairman, that this amount 
is not sitting in an account somewhere, but is currently available in the 
general Treasury for other uses. S. 735, by providing a constant level of 
funding, is intended to improve these land acquisition programs by having 
them again operate from a resource-based priority systan, which would in 
turn permit planning on a multi-year basis. 

As you know, I have gone to some lengths in attempting to provide a land 
acquisition program for the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service within the current efforts to reduce Federal spending. Einphasis has 
been placed on land protection by cooperative agreement, acquisition of 
partial interests, and when necessary, fee title acquisition has been 
sought through donation, partial donation, or exchange. 

However, the Department's position on S. 735 has not changed since Chairman 
Johnston's discussion with Secretary Hodel during the June 2 hearing on our" 
1002 Report. The Secretary and I continue to find the el«nents of the 
legislation to contain seme interesting concepts but due to the complexity 
of the entire LWCF issue, the Administration has not completed its review 
of the Fund program and the various options for its continuation. 
Therefore, while I will discuss some of the acconplislnments of the Fund and 
the general options currently under review, I cannot at this time reccmmend 
approval or disapproval of S. 735 or offer any specific suggestions or 
alternatives. 



18 



VJhile we are fully aware of tliis and other proposals for use of some 
portion of the Federal revenues from any oil leasing at the ^ctic National 
Wildlife Refuge for Land and Water Conservation Fund or other conservation 
purposes, we believe it is premature to focus on the issue at this time. 
The Congress has just begun consideration of tlie basic question of whether 
the Refuge should be open to leasing. Accordingly, we believe decisions on 
disposition of any revenues, should the Refuge be made available for a 
lease program, could best be made in the context of whatever leasing 
program is approved. 

However, I can assure you that an active interagency process to develop a 
comprehensive Administration proposal is underway. We expect to provide 
this informatii^n to you, with our recoriTiendations. 

To date, more than $6.6 billion has been appropriated from the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund, with $2.3 billion going for National Park land 
acquisition, $366 million for Fish and Wildlife Service land, $800 million 
for the Forest Service, $29 million for the Bureau of Land Management, and 
over $3.1 billion going to the States for their outdoor recreation 
programs. With these funds, the Federal agencies have purchased the 
followin-j acreages: National Park Service - 1,577,778; Fish and Wildlife 
Service - 507,693; Forest Service - 1,200,000; and the Bureau of Land 
rianagement - 262,217. The States have acquired 2,328,545 acres from the 
state grant portion of the progran. 

r*3w, however, the authorization for the Fund is expiring, and it is time to 
explore new directions for meeting the objectives of the Fund, directions 



19 



more consistent with today's buc3getary realities, and that recognize the 
achievements made under the L\CF in adding to the conservation and 
recreational estates of the Nation. Over the past 7 years, Congress has 
recognized that the money has simply not been available to fund the program 
at the statutorily authorized level of $900 million annually. No more than 
$335 million has been appropriated in any one year since 1980, and the 
average annual appropriation over the past three years has been $160 
million. 

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is not a true trust fund, and contrary 
to the common perception, neither the $900 million annual authorization nor 
the hypothetical "$5.1 billion surplus" represents money sitting in the 
Treasury waiting to be appropriated. It is a bookkeeping account, an 
authorization, and nothing more. A more realistic analogy would be to the 
ceiling or credit limit on a credit card, rather than the amount in a 
savings account. 

Just as an individual purchasing an item on his or her credit card must 
repay the cost of the purchase, rather tlian using that money for other 
needs, so any use of money authorized under the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund represents either a diversion of that money from another use or, in an 
option unavailable to the private citizen, a permanent increase in the 
national debt. We must face this central reality of no real money sitting 
on the shelf for the UCF if we are to create a workable future for Federal 
conservation land acquisition programs. 

The interagency group is exploring three basic concepts in our ongoing 



20 



review. One is a true trust fund for land acquisition; the second is a 
simple reauthorization of the present Land and Water Conservation Fund with 
a more realistic ceiling; and the third, similar in concept to S. 735, 
would establish a mechanism for level or guaranteed annual funding in 
amounts reasonably likely to be made available to the ajencies under 
current budgetary conditions. We are also examining the questions of 
whether additional Federal agencies should be authorized to receive funds 
fron the new LWZF, whether these monies should be available for operation 
and maintenance purposes as well as land acquisition, and whether the state 
grant portion of the program should be continueii, and if so, in what form. 

This concludes my prepared statement. I will be pleased to respond to any 
questions you may have. 



21 

The Chairman. Secretary Horn, let me stop you at that point 
and say, I have read your statement and I find it to be an excellent 
statement. I am very pleased at your statement that you cannot at 
this time recommend disapproval of S. 735. 

Also, the first part of that sentence I just read out talking about 
that you could not recommend approval — all I saw was that you 
could not recommend disapproval, and I like that part of it very 
much. 

I also like the fact that you find some interesting concepts in the 
bill, and I would say that this is as good as we can expect on this 
Committee. And I think it is very, very encouraging, and I want 
you to know I appreciate that position of you and Secretary Hodel 
with respect to this legislation. 

Let me ask you this. Suppose we do go ahead and authorize the 
drilling on ANWR and this legislation were then up next year, or 
let us say we authorize drilling on ANWR and they discover some 
gas there, and then that goes into the federal budget's oil and gas, 
and those revenues go into the federal budget, and then we propose 
this bill the year after. 

Do you think it would be as easy to get part of these revenues 
once the stream of revenues gets into the federal budget, if it did? 

Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be more difficult. I 
think there are an awful lot of people eyeing the prospective reve- 
nues that could be generated from a leasing program in the 1002 
area. Obviously, once those revenues are actually generated and 
deposited in the General Fund, I think the competition within the 
government for access to those funds is going to increase, rather 
than diminish. 

The Chairman. You say it is more difficult. That is really spelled 
impossible, is it not? 

Mr. Horn. Well, I guess we would say, "more difficult". Obvious- 
ly, you all make the final decisions on appropriating the dollars. I 
think the competition within the Executive Branch to lay claim to 
those dollars would be far more intense after the fact than it is in 
advance. 

The Chairman. Now, Secretary Horn, recognizing that you 
cannot take a position on this bill one way or the other, but let us 
suppose that the Department were willing to endorse it — or wheth- 
er you are willing to endorse it. I would like for you to look at the 
bill as a mechanism just to see whether the mechanism works 
properly and whether it is an efficient and proper and whether it is 
the best use of these moneys if we are going to spend them in this 
way. 

Do you have any suggestions for us? 

Mr. Horn. Within the Administration, as I indicated in the state- 
ment, we are engaged in a very active program to try to put togeth- 
er a comprehensive proposal dealing with the future of the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund. Our efforts are focused in at least 
three areas: 

Number one, what is the best mechanism for us to employ? 
Should we go with a simple reauthorization of the current fund, 
this bank card account? Should we look at creation of a true trust 
fund? Or should we look at some other type of a variant, different 
contributed funds, or other ways of guaranteeing annual funding? 



22 

I think that we are very much interested in trying to explore dif- 
ferent mechanisms, and the mechanism outHned in S. 735 is one 
that we have looked at in our internal deliberations. 

The second aspect we have looked at is what is an appropriate 
funding level? Should the funding level be generated by the re- 
ceipts that come in? If you earmark some sources of revenue, 
should we pick a funding level that reasonably gets the job done in 
terms of adding lands to the Federal conservation estate in a rea- 
sonably planned fashion? 

And then the third, of course, is coverage: should we deal solely 
with Federal acquisition? What should be the future of the State 
grants program? Should it continue and at what level and in what 
form? And should the fund be expanded in different areas to deal 
with items outside the narrow field of land acquisition? 

Should it deal with various aspects of operations and mainte- 
nance, which has been discussed at different times in the past? 

So, we are trying to look at all three of those, and I must say that 
the mechanical concepts in S. 735, are being scrutinized internally 
at this time. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Secretary, I wish you would provide for the record a list of 
the Department's top priority acquisitions for the Park Service, for 
Fish and Wildlife Service, and for BLM. And you might give us 
about your top, at least your top 20 in that respect, with the 
amounts of money you think they would require, and if any of 
them are to be acquired over a period of time any comments you 
might have with respect to that. 

[The information follows:] 



23 



U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 
APPROVED LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND 
NATIONAL PRIORITY LIST 
July 23, 1987 



NATL 
RANK 



PROJECT 



REGION 


TARGET 


2 


NSWH 




2 


NSWH 




1 
1 


Endangered 
NSWH 


Spp 


2 
4 


Endangered 
NSWH 


Spp 


6 


NSWH 




2 


NSWH 




5 


NSWH 




4 


Wetlands 




4 


NSWH 




3 
5 


Endangered 
NSWH 


Spp 


6 


NSWH 




1 
5 


Endangered 
NSWH 


Spp 


5 


Wetlands 




1 
5 


Endangered 
NSWH 


Spp 


3 


Wetlands 




1 


Wetlands 




5 


NSWH 




3 


NSWH 




3 


Wetlands 




2 

4 


Endangered 
NSWH 


Spp 


3 


Wetlands 




2 
3 
5 


Endangered 
Endangered 
NSWH 


Spp 
Spp 


3 


Wetlands 




4 


Wetlands 




6 


Wetlands 




4 
4 


Endangered 
Wetlands 


Spp 


7 


Wetlands 




4 

1 


Endangered 
NSWH 


Spp 


4 


NSWH 




5 


NSWH 




4 
4 


Endangered 
NSWH 


Spp 


6 


NSWH 




6 


NSWH 




4 


NSWH 




5 


Unassigned 





1 LOWER RIO GRANDE NWR, TX 

2 MATAGORDA ISLAND NWR, TX 

3 ASH MEADOWS NWR, NV 

4 SAN FRANCISCO BAY, CA 

5 LESLIE CANYON, AZ 

6 LOWER SUWANNEE NWR, FL 

7 NATIONAL ELK REFUGE, WY 

8 ANIMAS NWR, NM 

9 ***MCKINNEY NWR, CT 

10 ALLIGATOR RIVER, NC 

11 J.N. "DING" DARLING, FL 

12 DRIFTLESS AREA NWR, I A 

13 TINICUM NEC, PA 

14 CHARLES M. RUSSELL, MT 

15 BLUNT-LI Z. T. , CA 

16 GREAT SWAMP NWR, NJ 

17 SUNKHAZE MEADOWS NWR, ME 

18 BLUNT-LIZ. M&F, CA 

19 TRUSTOM POND NWR, RI 
2 PATOKA RIVER NWR, IN 

21 KLAMATH FOREST NWR, OR 

22 GREAT DISMAL SWAMP, NC/VA 
2 3 MINNESOTA VALLEY NWR, MN 

2 4 TREMPEALEAU NWR, WI 

25 OKLAHOMA BAT CAVES, OK 

26 TENSAS RIVER NWR, LA 

27 FOX RIVER NWR, WI 

28 ATWRTRS PRAIRIE CHICKEN, TX 
2 9 KIRTLAND'S WARBLER, MI 

30 EASTERN SHORE OF VA, VA 

31 UPPER MISS. RIV. NWFR, MN 

32 BAYOU SAUVAGE, LA 

33 RAINWATER, NE 

34 NATIONAL KEY DEER, 

35 CHICKASAW NWR, TN 

36 KENAI RIVER FLATS, 

37 CRYSTAL RIVER, FL 

38 STEIGERWALD LAKE, WA 

39 ST. VINCENT NWR, FL 

40 WERTHEIM NWR, NY 

41 MISS. SANDHILL CRANE, MS 

42 BON SECOUR NWR, AL 

43 SWAN RIVER NWR, MT 

44 LEE METCALF NWR, MT 

45 BOGUE CHITTO NWR, LA 

46 GREAT MEADOWS NWR, MA 



FL 



AK 



24 



*** Formerly Coastal Connecticut NWR, name changed by P.L. 100-38, 
May 13, 1987 

NSWH = Nationally Significant Wildlife Habitat 

NOTES: (1) All projects have approved Preliminary Project 
Proposals or other approved decision documents. 
(2) This list supercedes the previous LWCF National 
Priority List dated June 10, 1987. 



25 



National Park Service 
Land Acquisition Priorities 



Area 

Acquisition Management 

Deficiencies, Emergencies, Hardships 

Inholdlngs 

Appalachian NS Trail 

Manassas NBP 

Grant-Kohrs Ranch NHS 

Alaska Parks 

Olympic NP 

Golden Gate NRA 

Gulf Islands NS 

Chattahoochee River NRA 

Delaware Water Gap NRA 

New River Gorge NR 

John Day Fossil Beds NM 

Cumberland Island NP 

Cuyahoga Valley NRA 

Voyageurs NP 

Ebey's Landing N.Hlst.Pres. 

Antletam NB 

Acadia NP 

Total 



Amount 

$6,500,000 

6,000,000 

5,000,000 

14,000,000 

2,000,000 

600,000 
5,000,000 
3,000,000 
4,000,000 

800,000 
7,000,000 
3,000,000 
5,000,000 

250,000 
1,000,000 
5,000,000 
4,000,000 
79,000 
1,000,000 
3,500,000 

$76,729,000 



7/24/87 



26 



Pro.ject MajTve 



Bur eau of Land Management 
Pr iority L&WCF Projects 

Total First 

Acres to be Year 
Acquired (Dollars) 



1. Kins Range HCA. CI 940 

2. Upper Missouri WSI. MT 2,200 

3. Bizz Johnson Hafl. Trail, CA 200 

4. Steens Mtn. Rec. Area, OR 4,700 

5. North Fork American River, CA 1,621 

6. Wilderness Inholdings Unknown 

7. Carrizo Plains, CA 165,000 

8. Desert Tortoise Nst'l. Area, CA 7,140 

9. Owyhee River, ID 836 

10. ChucVwalla Bench ACEC, CA 12,560 

11. Birds of Preft ID 359 

12. Chacoan Outliers N/A 

13. City of Rocks, ID 400 

14. Acquisition Kanagecent M/A 

Total Priority UWCF Projects 
NA - Not available 



1,000,000 
500,000 
195,000 
575.000 
400,000 

1,500,000 

1,000,000 
500,000 
352,000 
100,000 
153,000 
500,000 
200,000 

1.500.000 

18,474,000 



Out-Year 
Dollars 

1,000.000 
600,000 
255,000 
-0- 
1,000,000 
Unknown 
36,000,000 
571,000 
-0- 
1,200,000 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 
Unknown 



27 

The Chairman. I might say, I would also like for Mr. Dunlop to 
provide the same information that is listed, your top priorities in 
the Agricultural Service. 

Mr. Dunlop. Yes, sir, we would be very pleased to try to do that. 
I probably should advise the Committee, though, that because the 
Administration over the past six or eight years has not asked for in 
its budget a land acquisition program, we really do not have a na- 
tional priority list. 

What we do when the Congress then appropriates money in 
these accounts, we take the accounts, break them down, and pro- 
vide, make priorities that way. And that is what we would be pre- 
pared to provide to the Committee forthwith. 

The Chairman. Well, whatever information or advice you have 
in that would be helpful. 

Mr. Dunlop. Yes indeed. 

The Chairman. Senator Murkowski, we will hear from Secretary 
Dunlop in just a minute. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK H. MURKOWSKI, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF ALASKA 

Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry, our 
luncheon extended a little longer today. We were debating the 
budget and, needless to say, we did not reach a conclusion. 

I certainly appreciate the opportunity to hear the testimony for 
your bill, S. 735, to modify the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 
As I think you know, Mr. Chairman, I have some very grave con- 
cerns about the bill, but the concept of a fund specifically designat- 
ed for wildlife habitat is certainly something that is needed and 
should be continued. 

I support the theory behind the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, to use revenues generated from non-renewable resources to 
acquire and protect renewable, pertinent resources. 

In addition, I would agree that the Congressional failure to ade- 
quately appropriate money from time to time from the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund ought to be addressed by the Committee. 

But I do not believe Senate Bill S. 735 establishes the proper for- 
mula for addressing that problem. Although this bill is generic in 
principle, it is my interpretation in practical reality that it will 
most likely apply only to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 
ANWR in Alaska. And I intend to question the witnesses on that 
specifically, Mr. Chairman. 

As a consequence, it seeks to use revenues to which the state of 
Alaska is legally and equitably entitled to pay for the acquisition of 
valuable lands for the benefit of all Americans. 

Other refuges have oil and gas potential, but I think it is mini- 
mal compared to ANWR. And the Alaska Statehood Act specifical- 
ly provided that revenues generated from the production of oil and 
gas on federal lands in Alaska be divided on a 90-10 state-federal 
distribution formula, and this was covered under the Mineral Leas- 
ing Act as well. 

And why the 90-10? Well, because Alaska was an undeveloped 
state with a great need for revenues to be used so it was deemed 
most appropriate. There was a genuine consideration as to whether 



28 

or not we could in fact support statehood, and because the other 
states who relied on the reclamation fund were fearful about Alas- 
ka's inclusion in the fund, because of our large land mass and the 
unique demands. 

Now times have changed. The 90-10 revenue sharing looks good 
to other states, like a windfall to Alaska. So proposals have arisen 
to change it. 

The question that I must raise is, if we can so easily change Alas- 
ka's formula, why not change other sharing formulas as well? The 
reclamation fund could use an infusion of additional revenues. 
Why not reduce other states' share of federal revenues from feder- 
al leases to 25 percent and increase the reclamation fund accord- 
ingly? 

Mr. Chairman, I think we both know how a proposal of that 
nature would fare. But the question remains, why treat Alaska dif- 
ferently on this issue than any other state? There seems to be a 
generally held perception that the 90-10 formula should be 
changed because Alaska no longer needs revenues. 

I grant you that Alaska has certainly benefited from the oil de- 
velopment, but not at the expense of the federal government and 
not by virtue of 90-10 revenue sharing. Prudhoe Bay is on state 
lands and is therefore not subject to federal revenue-sharing formu- 
las. 

Has Alaska used the profits from oil development wisely? I be- 
lieve it has, as do Alaskans. Mr, Chairman, we built much-needed 
schools in our villages, hospitals, roads, bridges, airports — many 
things that we did not have and many things that other states take 
for granted and have had for a long, long time. 

We have also created a state savings account, the permanent 
fund, as a way of preserving some of the revenues from develop- 
ment of our resources, some of the revenues, Mr. Chairman, from 
non-renewable resources such as oil. 

But that does not mean that Alaska no longer has need for reve- 
nue. Mr. Chairman, you have heard me say before that Alaska is 
unique. You have been to our state and you are well aware of that. 

How many other states have more than 227 million acres of fed- 
eral land within their borders, 38,000 miles of coastline? How many 
other states have 48 million acres of national parks, 53 million 
acres of national wildlife refuge, and 56 million acres of designated 
wilderness? 

How many other states are there where the only means of access 
to over 95 percent of its communities is strictly by air or water, no 
other means available, no surface transportation? 

In how many other states does a gallon of milk cost $4.50 in a 
village because of freight costs? 

Maybe it is appropriate, in light of changed circumstances in this 
state, to consider revising the 90-10 formula. But any such propos- 
al should be developed with Alaskan consultation and concurrence, 
not in a take it or leave it basis. 

In conclusion, while I support your efforts, Mr. Chairman, to ad- 
dress the Land and Water Conservation Fund problems and I 
pledge my support to work with you to develop alternative situa- 
tions, I cannot support this bill at this time, which proposes to sup- 



29 

port the fund pretty much exclusively as far as my identification is 
concerned at the expense of my state of Alaska. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski. 

Mr. Dunlop. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE S. DUNLOP, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Mr. Dunlop. Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement which I 
might submit for the record, and then I might just draw three 
fibers from the fabric, if I may, to highlight some of the points that 
we have. 

The first point I would make is that the Department of Agricul- 
ture supports the concept of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, as past accomplishments have provided for the acquisition of 
very valuable recreation property. In fact, the Forest Service com- 
ponent over the years has been about 22 percent of the total feder- 
al program. 

The second point I would make, Mr. Chairman, is that, because 
of the already very large current federal estate, the past accom- 
plishments we have made as well as the federal deficit and current 
demands on the federal budget, we believe that a continued large 
land acquisition program is really not necessary. 

Land exchanges and other types of activities in which we can 
engage do exist under current authority that allows the Forest 
Service to make necessary land ownership adjustments. And I 
might point out, for instance, that in 1986 133,000 acres of non-fed- 
eral lands were exchanged, for 101,000 acres of national forest 
system lands, at an administrative cost of only $5.2 million. 

That same year we acquired approximately 43,000 acres for $31 
million. Thus, in 1986 the Forest Service acquired three times the 
amount of land by exchange than by purchase, and for only one- 
sixth of the cost. 

Of course, we recognize that purchase is absolutely necessary in 
many instances and exchange does not always work. But we have 
proposed to Congress that we continue to work together with the 
management agencies to simplify and expedite the types of things 
that we can do under existing authority. 

It would be my hope and our hope at the Department of Agricul- 
ture that as we work on these land acquisition matters that would 
be included under this account, perhaps this process could be 
moved along a little if we established some hierarchical order to 
the process once we have decided upon the particular tracts. 

In other words, give precedence to, let us say, those tracts that 
involve some element of exchange or some element of donation or 
perhaps an element of acquisition of partial interest, maybe reduc- 
tion in the acreage and that kind of thing. 

We are very, very pleased at the feedback we have had from the 
Committee staff, both here and the other relevant Committees, to 
look at some way in which the Administration would be able to 
come up with a land acquisition program that would be the kind of 
thing that Congress could work with. 



77-689 - 87 - 2 



30 

As you know, we have come up with a zero amount every year, 
and that frankly does not give you the input you need. And I am 
looking for ways to try to work that out. 

And so the third point I would make in that regard is that at 
this stage of the game, this stage of consideration, the Department 
of Agriculture could not recommend the enactment of a bill as it is, 
nor oppose the enactment as it is. 

We are very eager to work with you. As Assistant Secretary 
Horn just said, we have got a very, very active inter-agency, inter- 
Departmental effort under way. We feel an obligation as an Ad- 
ministration to come to this Committee and come to you and say, 
here is our very best thinking on this and we would like to have 
those thoughts considered by the Committee. 

Unfortunately, we are not ready today to do that. But we should 
be after the August recess. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Dunlop follows:] 



31 



STATEMENT OF 

GEORGE S. DUNLOP. ASSISTANT SECRETARY 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

before the 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks, and Forests 

Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

United States Senate 

Concerning S. 735 

JULY ll^. 1987 

MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE: 

Thank you for the opportunity to present our views on S. 735. a bill "To amend 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, Emd for other purposes." 



The Department of Agriculture recognizes the past accomplishments and valuable 
contributions of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (L&WCF) . Since the L&WCF 
program began in I965. approximately $3.5 billion have been appropriated for 
Federal land acquisitions. The Forest Service expenditures exceed $800 million 
or approximately 22 percent of the total Federal program. Nearly 1.2 million 
acres have been acquired within the National Forest System. We support the 
concept of the Land and Water Conservation Fund, as past accomplishments have 
provided for the acquisition of valuable recreation properties. 

S. 735 would create a separate fund, to be available witliout further 
appropriation, consisting of two sources: (1) $l60 million per annum, to be 
derived from the authorized but unappropriated balance of the L&WCF fund; plus 
(2) 25 percent of all revenues received from competitive bids, sales, bonuses, 
royalties, rents, fees, interest charges, or other income derived from the 
leasing of oil and gas resources within units of the National Wildlife Refuge 



32 



System. The appropriations committees would be directed to appropriate the 
fund in accordance with a priority list prepared by the Directors of the Bureau 
of Land Management, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, and Chief 
of the Forest Service. If the appropriations committees fail to allocate funds 
from this special account, the Secretary of the Treasury would be authorized 
and directed to make such funds available to the land managing agencies in 
accordance with the following formula: 

'to percent to the National Park Service; 

^0 percent to the Fish and Wildlife Service; 

15 percent to the Forest Service; and 
5 percent to the Bureau of Land Management. 

In consideration of the current Federal estate, past accomplishments, and the 
Federal deficit, we believe a continued large land acquisition program is not 
necessary. Other authorizations exist that allow the Forest Service to make 
necessary landownership adjustments. Recent budget requests for L&WCF were 
directed only towards providing administrative funds necessary for the 
completion of cases funded from previous year appropriations and for pursuing 
land exchange cases that qualify under L&WCF criteria. Land exchanges were 
planned to acquire other high priority tracts. In I986, 133,000 acres of 
non-Federal land were exchanged for 101, Si** acres of National Forest System 
lands -- at an administrative cost of $5.2 million. In that same year, '43,165 
acres were purchased for $31 million. Thus, in I986, the Forest Service 
acquired three times more land by exchange than by purchase for one-sixth the 
cost. We recognize that purchase may be the only viable means of acquiring 
certain tracts. However, we are emphasizing land exchanges by offering 
non-Federal landowners the opportunity to pursue an exchange as an alternative 
to Federal purchase of their land. 



33 



We propose that the Congress continue to work with the land management agencies 
to simplify and expedite the donation and exchange processes to acquire high 
priority lands. Land acquisition, either by purchase or exchange, is a 
long-term process that requires extensive planning, assessment of Federal 
needs, economic analysis, and prioritization. Then, consideration must be 
given to the most cost effective method of landownership adjustment. This 
process includes the following options: (1) donation of land; (2) land 
exchange; (3) acquisition of partial interest; C*) reduction in acreage; and, 
if absolutely necessary, (5) cash purchase. We will continue to emphasize 
land exchange as the primary means of landownership adjustment for the Forest 
Service and as a more desirable alternative to purchase. 

We have no position on S. 735 at this time. This bill addresses only a few of 
the many questions, Issues, and concerns relating to how the entire L&WCF 
program should be funded and administered. An active Interagency process Is 
ongoing to develop a comprehensive Administration proposal. We expect to 
provide this information, with recommendations, to you shortly. 

This concludes my testimony. We look forward to working with the Subcommittee 
as you consider amendments to L&WCF and other Issues dealing with land 
acquisition processes that will improve ownership patterns on the National 
Forests and better provide for public needs. I will be happy to answer your 
questions or provide any additional information you may desire. 



34 

The Chairman. Thank you very much for that, Secretary 
Dunlop. 

I want to urge you and Secretary Horn to work with us on this, 
because we want to give you a maximum of flexibility. I mean, 
with respect to all of these acquisitions, we want the Department, 
all Departments, to be able to get the best targets of opportunity. 
And you have got to have flexibility to do that. 

As far as I am concerned, I would like to see you acquire the 
least amount necessary to achieve the job. Sometimes that might 
be an easement of use, or a site or something less than fee acquisi- 
tions, sometimes something exchanged — all of these different 
things for which you need flexibility. 

Now, at the same time the fundamental tenet of the bill is to 
make this an automatic appropriation so that we do not get caught 
up in somebody's budget each year, assuming we do open ANWR 
and assuming there is oil and gas there, that we will not get 
caught up in the budget crunch every year and have them taking 
away this. 

Because, as you know, it is a whole lot easier to defeat a bill. So 
if you can just defeat, defeat with 41 votes somebody's grab of 
parks and agricultural lands, then it will be automatic. 

So we have to reconcile those two views, the flexibility that you 
need and the automaticity, if that is a word, on the other hand. 
And so I hope you will be thinking about that soon. 

I hope we can make this bill happen fairly fast. Our friends in 
the environmental community up to this point are opposed to the 
bill, not because they do not recognize there are great needs for 
parks, but because they do not want, if I can judge their motives, 
they do not want any of their fingerprints to be put on the opening 
up of ANWR. 

And all of the words and repetitions that I could make that the 
two issues are unrelated have thus far been not of assurance to 
them. But I hope that their opposition will be more formal than 
intense, because I would like to make this thing happen and soon. 

You know, it is one thing to make a formal opposition and it is 
another thing to try to mobilize and energize all the troops. If they 
do not do the latter, then I hope we can make this bill happen 
pretty soon and then forget about this bill. 

If we never open up ANWR, it has not done any harm at all. If 
this Congress does not, but some other Congress does, then that 
money will be there for them. 

Mr. Dunlop. Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, I might give you 
encouragement in that regard, because in the past year that I have 
had the occasion to serve in the Administration — as you may know, 
I served for a number of years up here on the Hill, twelve years as 
a Committee staff director — I can attest to the fact that the ability 
of the Congress and the Administration to work together, to work 
out a sensible, predictable policy in this is a very, very needed 
thing. 

Both the Congress needs it and the Administration needs it. The 
public needs it. So your effort in this regard is something that we 
pledge sincere cooperation toward, just because it is the right thing 
to do and it will allow planning to go ahead and the other issues 



35 

then to be resolved, rather than the constant frustration that we 
face as we deal every year with this complicated question. 

So you are right on target from our point of view at the Depart- 
ment, and we are your willing and obedient servants, as they used 
to say. 

The Chairman. Well, I appreciate that very much. Secretary 
Dunlop. And if both of you will give us your best advice on this 
mechanism and soon, because I would like to bring it up very, very 
fast, I mean, giving everybody a chance to have his say, but I 
would like to make it happen fast and I hope we could, on the con- 
sent calendar. 

This would not be the first bill that I would hope that could be 
on the consent calendar that ran into opposition later on, but I 
would hope it could be done in that way. 

Senator Murkowski. 

Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is my understanding that in the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund there is about $5 billion currently. About $900 million is 
coming in annually, and yet we are expending about $160 million a 
year. 

Mr. Horn. Well, Mr. Chairman, the way it works is that the cur- 
rent fund is really like a credit line from the bank, and the credit 
line is up to $900 million annually. Yes, there is an accrued bal- 
ance, so to speak, of $5.2 to $5.3 billion. But there are no actual 
dollars in an account, unused, any place. 

In other words, there are no unused, unappropriated dollars sit- 
ting there on the shelf for Congress to take off. All of those dollars 
have been expended by Congress and the Executive Branch for 
some other activity. 

So it is basically unused authority that is still out there. 

Senator Murkowski. Well, you are expending out of the author- 
ity $160 million? 

Mr. Horn. That is because those have been appropriated dollars 
pursuant to an act of Congress. 

Senator Murkowski. So what you are saying is the appropriators 
will not give you the appropriation for any more, even though you 
have the authority? 

Mr. Horn. We have not asked. As a matter of fact, we have been 
asking for rather limited amounts, and Congress has been giving us 
more than we have asked for. 

Senator Murkowski. What would change on this if S. 735 were 
to become law? 

Mr. Horn. Well, the way we read it, I think as the Chairman 
noted earlier, is that we would end up with a far more automatic 
program, that a substantial sum of money would be made avail- 
able, not subject to appropriation, on a more-or-less automatic basis 
for land acquisition purposes. 

Senator Murkowski. It is currently my understanding that 
about $2.5 million are coming in from leases on refuges? 

Mr. Horn. It is not an enormous sum of dollars, and I would 
have to get for the record the exact number. But it is somewhere, a 
de minimis sum, when you compare it to OCS revenues and some 
of the other elements that are earmarked for LWCF. 

[The information follows:] 



36 

Oil and gas receipts for refuges in the lower-48 States 

Fiscal year 1986 acquired lands: 

Hatchie NWR, TN $1,095.50 

Delta NWR, LA 1,359,858.90 

Sabine NWR, LA 18,744.13 

Medicine Lake NWR, MT 324,409.60 

Des Lacs NWR, ND 3,497.52 

J. Clark Salyer NWR, ND 122,691.36 

Upper Souris NWR, ND 61,347.70 

Quivira NWR, KS 3,018.21 

Pathfinder, CO 40.00 

Total 1,894,702.82 

Senator Murkowski. Can you identify other wildlife refuges 
other than ANWR that have a significant oil and gas or mineral 
potential? 

Mr. Horn. Basically, most of the refuges that have potential 
where that mineral estate is retained by the Federal Government 
are probably in the State of Alaska. Most places where we have oil 
and gas activity in units of the refuge system — and there are about 
40 to 50 such units out of the 430-plus units of the system overall — 
are where we acquired the surface only and private ownership re- 
tained the subsurface. Then we have worked out arrangements to 
let them continue to extract their private minerals while we own 
the surface estate and manage that for wildlife protection purposes. 

In those cases, of course, there are no revenues being generated 
for the Federal Government, and no disposition or deposit in any 
type of a fund. So the only unit where the Administration is pro- 
posing any oil and gas leasing activity on our own is in the coastal 
plain portion of ANWR. In the other 430 units, we are not propos- 
ing any oil and gas activity on our own. 

Senator Murkowski. So obviously, this would trigger in ANWR 
if indeed it did become law more significantly than any other iden- 
tifiable refuge? 

Mr. Horn. Yes, sir. I think the 1002 report indicates that we are 
looking at prospective bonus revenues in the $2 to $3 billion range, 
potentially. Of course, I do not think we have another unit of the 
system that is anjrwhere close to that. 

Very clearly, that is the most outstanding frontier oil and gas 
area we have been able to identify, and as a consequence, it would 
generate the lion's share of the dollars. 

Senator Murkowski. My last question has to do with the process 
of identifying desirable areas to be added to our treasurehouse of 
unique and pristine wilderness areas, conservation areas, and so 
forth. 

Do you, as a Department of Interior, formally sit down and iden- 
tify those acquisitions that you would like to obtain? And is it 
pretty much limited under the LWCF acquisition process? 

Mr. Horn. Mr. Chairman, when I took office one of the things 
that perplexed me was that we did not have a system in place to 
identify exactly what our priorities were. Both the National Park 
Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service have worked over the 
past years to generate an objective resource priority program with 
a series of specified criteria built into it. We of course are in the 
position to provide that outlines to the Committees. It shows if we 
have X dollars, here is what we would acquire. 



37 

Senator Murkowski. So you do this internally? You identify in- 
ternally? 

Mr. Horn. We have generated that internally as our own initia- 
tive. 

Senator Murkowski. Okay. In this process, various environmen- 
tal groups perhaps come in and make suggestions to you. Do you 
take their recommendations and consider them? 

Mr. Horn. It is not any type of a public process right now. It is 
being conducted by the resource professionals within the agencies, 
pursuant to these objective criteria that we established in advance. 

Senator Murkowski. I see. Is there any reason that you do not 
respond to environmental groups that may have suggestions that 
you acquire specific lands for a purpose that corresponds with their 
particular cause or interest? 

Mr. Horn. I think we do, but I think the system is essentially ad 
hoc. We have people come to us with different proposals and differ- 
ent ideas on areas to acquire. We have our people evaluate and 
review those proposals. 

If, of course, the resource professionals are duly persuaded, that 
can be incorporated into our priority list, if indeed the attributes of 
that particular parcel of land satisfy the criteria that we have es- 
tablished. 

Senator Murkowski. Can you tell us, in the case of Alaska, if 
there are currently any areas that have been identified by various 
environmental groups or special interest groups that they would 
like to see become part of the Federal withdrawals? 

Mr. Horn. Right now we have nothing per se on the resource 
priority list because, as you are well aware, we can obtain lands in 
Alaska only on a willing-seller basis. We cannot acquire through 
condemnation, which is authority we have in the Lower 48. 

We obviously have intense interest in acquiring some of the key 
wildlife parcels. There are approximately 10 million acres of native 
inholdings within the wildlife refuge system in Alaska, and some of 
those lands are of extremely high value. We of course are interest- 
ed in obtaining those lands. 

Senator Murkowski. But is it because Alaska does not belong to 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund and participate that you 
cannot use that? I thought the funds could be used outside the indi- 
vidual state if it was deemed in the interest of the government? 

Mr. Horn. The funds can be used. We have not come up with 
any particular small parcels that are of sufficient priority to buy. 

Obviously, one of the problems is that the extent of the inhold- 
ings in Alaska is so large that we could spend the entire balance if 
we were to go after some of those inholdings. We are talking about 
hundreds of thousands of acres of land, of inholdings within the 
refuges, whereas in the Lower 48 we are sometimes talking about 
picking up inholdings measured in tens of acres. 

Obviously, if we started committing our limited cash resources to 
the Alaska inholdings, we would break the bank. 

Senator Murkowski. Well, is it your interpretation that the ap- 
plication of this legislation, S. 735, as you have already testified 
that the identifiable revenue would come from refuges in Alaska, 
that it would necessarily mandate that it be expended in Alaska? 

Or would it purport that it could be expended anywhere? 



38 

Mr. Horn. My understanding is it could be expended anywhere 
pursuant to these land acquisition priority lists. Indeed, that is one 
of the features of S. 735 that we are very supportive of, the idea of 
having the land acquisition program being driven by these re- 
source-based priority systems. 

Senator Murkowski. You said that there was not enough money 
from the LWCF currently in appropriations to acquire some of the 
identifiable lands, ideal lands, in Alaska. So Alaska would have no 
assurance, then, even if S. 735 passed, that identifiable lands in 
Alaska that were desirous of going in the system would necessary 
go in. 

It may be other refuges, so we have complete exposure and no 
assurance that it is going to be beneficial to holdings in Alaska, 
and that it would be beneficial to the federal government manag- 
ing. Is that correct? 

Mr. Horn. I think it would depend upon how those particular in- 
holdings ranked on the overall land acquisition priority. 

Senator Murkowski. Nationally, as opposed to within our state? 

Mr. Horn. Yes. 

Senator Murkowski. And nobody, including environmental 
groups, is banging down your door, proposing that things in our 
state happen, in other words that acquisitions be acquired on iden- 
tifiable land that could be added to a wilderness area, a wildlife 
area, and so forth? 

Mr. Horn. We have had three or four relatively small cash ac- 
quisitions approved by Congress during the period I have been at 
the Department: the Gagnon property in Wrangell-St. Elias Park, 
and some appropriations for purchases at Tazumin Lake Basin, an 
inholding in Lake Clark National Park. 

Most of our acquisition of inholdings in Alaska in parks and ref- 
uges has been by exchange since the Alaska Lands Act passed, and 
in combination of exchanges, arrangements with the state, unrelin- 
quished donations, and such. We have been able to add over a mil- 
lion acres to the parks and refuges in the state through a series of 
transactions with the use of the exchange authority. 

Senator Murkowski. Well, Mr. Chairman, I kind of feel like the 
bride that has been put up by her father without much to say 
about the ultimate disposition of her future, because it appears to 
me our state is in the unique position here of being afforded, 
indeed, under the legislation the opportunity to fund, but not have 
the assurance that the acquisitions would necessarily take place. 

And that concerns me greatly. Since we do not seem to have had 
a great deal of evidence exhibited by various groups that want to 
see specific exchanges take place in Alaska, I guess I have a hard 
time interpreting the need of this legislation as being beneficial to 
our particular state. 

And I certainly recognize that there are 49 other states as well to 
be considered, but speaking from a strictly singular point of view, 
it does seem that it is pinpointed from a revenue generation at our 
state. 

I want to thank you for the time you have allotted me to make 
our particular point of view heard. 

The Chairman. Senator Bradley. 

Senator Bradley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 



39 

I would like to ask Mr. Horn, what are the three or four places 
that you would see the greatest revenues being derived from the 
decision to allow 25 percent of revenues of future oil and gas leas- 
ing in national wildlife refuges to go to this special fund? 

Mr. Horn. Very clearly, the only unit of the refuge system that 
would generate any appreciable oil and gas revenues would be the 
coastal plain portion of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge if Congress 
chooses to open that area up. 

Senator Bradley. You cannot conceive of any other place where 
there might be any revenues? 

Mr. Horn. There is some appreciable, significant — pick the term 
one wishes — potential within some of the other refuge units in 
Alaska, where Congress, through section 1009 of the Alaska Lands 
Act, has specifically authorized the creation of what is called the 
North Slope leasing program. 

Those areas have some potential, but right now it is rather limit- 
ed. Depending upon what the geologists might find, that potential 
could increase. But right now I do not think anybody could predict 
any appreciable or significant revenues from leasing any other 
non-ANWR refuges in Alaska for at least the next ten years. 

Senator Bradley. Could you imagine any in the lower 48? 

Mr. Horn. As I indicated earlier, for most of the refuges in the 
Lower 48 where we have acquired sub-surface estate along with the 
surface estate, we have no intention to offer leases. 

We have the authority to do so under the Refuge Administration 
Act pursuant to a compatibility determination, but it has been the 
Secretary's basic policy that we are not interested in leasing or 
pursuing oil and gas leasing in any other units of the wildlife 
refuge system in the Lower 48. 

Senator Bradley. But in terms of oil and gas potential, what 
would be three or four in the Lower 48 that would have significant 
oil and gas potential? 

Mr. Horn. I would have to check with the geologists. I think that 
there are some with some potential. It would be difficult to say 
that there are any in the Lower 48 that have significant potential 
where the Federal Government has retained the sub-surface estate. 

There are a number of refuges, where private owners have re- 
tained the sub-surface, that have significant oil and gas. I think of 
the Atchafalaya unit we have recently established in Louisiana 
with the cooperation of the Chairman. 

But there, of course, the potential has been retained by the pri- 
vate owner. That is generally the case where you have appreciable 
oil and gas in the Lower 48 areas. 

Senator Bradley. Any other places other than at Atchafalaya? 

Mr. Horn. No. 

Senator Bradley. Whether the government retains the rights, 
sub-surface rights, or not, at least the area is under the manage- 
ment as a wildlife refuge. 

Mr. Horn. For example, in Atchafalaya we have a special ar- 
rangement with the sub-surface owner where we negotiated a con- 
tract, and that contract specifies how he will operate on that land 
to ensure protection for surface values. 



40 

I can provide for the record the Ust of other units of the refuge 
system where our geologist might see some potential for oil and 
gas. 

But as I indicated, the Secretary's present policy is not to pursue 
leasing of any of those refuge units in the lower 48. 

The Chairman. If the Senator would yield, there is some produc- 
tion right now on some refuges in Louisiana. 

Senator Bradley. I have seen them, and I am just trying to, if I 
can, get a sense of what the universe is here. So if you have looked 
at that document, could you remember any more, or do you want 
to just provide it for the record? 

Mr. Horn. I think I had better provide it for the record. I know 
that there is a list of 40 or 50 units with some potential. 

[The information follows:] 

This information was prepared in early 1983 while leasing on refuges was being 
considered. The Service did not complete the identification of refuges overlapped by 
known geologic structures prior to the no-lease policy. 



41 



^ en 

• I 

a: oc 

» oc 






01 

a: 

u 

> 

9> 



01 

> 
o 



OJ 


a; 


0) 


OJ 


c- 


en 


tji 


01 




3 


3 


3 


<^ 


<4- 


>l- 


t- 


01 


<U 


0) 


01 


C- 


C 


L. 


c_ 


c 


c 


C 


c 










J= 


.c 


^ 


JC 


■<-> 


4J 


4-> 


^ 










s 


2 


3 


J 


^ 


>^ 


>> 


>. 










"oj 


o; 


dJ 


0) 



UJ 


cs. 










01 


cv; 


•— 










Jl 


,_ 


o 


T3 








>» 


• 


Oi 


I- 








(O 


cr: 


U1 


ID 








f 


«s 


CM 


C 








1 


z 


*-v^ 


TJ 




r — . 




>. 


ID 


t— < 


4-» 




<• — . 


^— * 


«- 


*— < 
1 


z 


in 




3 

f-H 


«3- 




^r 




+-» 




,-H 


f-H 


c: 


f-H 


T3 


O 




• 




3 


• 


c 


c 




q; 


LU 


o 


1- 


<c 






•• 


1/1 


^ 1—1 




•« 


00 




oo 


M 


c oo 


a> 


f-H 






in 


«3- 


o <^ 


o 


• 


f-H 




• 


n 


e 2^ 


3 


o 






t— 


• 




<•- 


<u 


• 




> — 


U 


O "^ 


0> 


(rt 


en 






0) 


o o 


c 




o 




Q. 


tn 






r^ 


<U 




lU 




>> c 


c 


r— 


</i 






* 


.— o 




lO 






"Z 


LU 


c -.- 


J= 




M 




OJ 


r- 


o <« 


4J 


M 


3 




> 


If) 


*-- c 


•r- 


LlJ 


CT^ 




o 


• 


UJ 


X 


CO 


f-H 


1—1 




cc 


LU Q. 




f-H 


• 




a> 




V£> X 


>, 




cc 


m 


*j 


« 


IT) a> 




* 




c 


•r- 


z 




'oi 


on 


ft 


o 


C 


0-. 


« 0) 


(. 


f-H 


z 






1 


z c 




r-l 


ir> 


•u 


>•- 


00 


CT> 3 


4-> 


• 


• 


o 


01 


* 


• -tJ 


C 


1— 


1— 


OI 


■o 


1— 


t— 3 


UJ 


> 


1 — 1 


W) 


1 — r 


*■ — ' 


1 — !<*- 



■cr 
c 



u. 


c 




o 


O) 


•t— 


c 


en 


•^ 


0) 


o. 


a: 


Q. 




<c 


<o 




^ 


(. 


ifi 


a> 


Its 


> 


r— 


o 


<t 



in 
01 

(. 
3 
4-> 
U 
3 
C 
4-> 

\n 
u 

a> 

o 

"o 



X 
c 



Ll- 


•1— 


1 ^ 


+J 




c 


L. o; 




^ 


■z> 


a; 01 


c 


01 




> 1- 


3 


a< 


,— 


•f- <_) 




L- 


p_ 


en 


j^ 


tJ 


.r_ 


<o 


L. 




I 


c c 


o 


t- 




O ■!-> 


Ll. 


Ol 


^ 


U) O 




> 


o 


C T3 


*J 


<o 


:. 


fO >— 


Ift 


<S 


CQ 


s c 
00 oo 


^ 



0) 



c a 
o 

•f- O) 

*J <^ 

z .— 
T3 





>> 








■o 






4-> 








r^ 




c 






^ 




0) 


•o 


o 


O 




<_ 




•^ 


^M 








o 




Uu 


0) 


OI 


(. 




<»- 








a> 


0) 




t- 




<n 


il! 


o: 


4-> 




3 




o> 






*J 




O 




c 


o> 


c 


3 




u. 


.c 


•^ 


c 


t. 


00 






u 


c 


■^ 


0) 


1 


^_ 


<o 


<o 


o. 


c 


4-> 
lA 


Qi 


<D 


c 
o 


<s 


lo 


00 


OJ 


"n 


(- 


*-> 




0) 




3 


T3 


o; 


<o 


r— 


r^ 


Q. 




in 


c 


o. 


f^ 


Ol 


<D 




i= 


E 


£ 


d>, 


nj 

LU 


1- 
1— 



lO 


UJ 


IT3 


(O 


c 


c 


C 


c 


01 


91 


01 


01 


^ 


^ 


^ 


ii 



» fj 


c 


O 01 


•^ 


H- t- 


fO 


t. «t 


'I-' 


0) 


c 


+-> ••-> 


3 


3 0) 


£ 


t- a> 


L. 


01 Ol 


01 


4-> <a 


Q. 


m c 


a. 


•-= "2 


o 






at 



■o 

ID 
O 



OJ 



■a 
o 



m lo <a 
(^ q: a: 



0) OJ 



00 



10 



<TJ 



<o 


"O 


<o 


la 


















c 


C 


c 


c 






t. 


t. 


(. 


l- 






o 


o 


o 


o 


<o 


IT> 


<t- 


<»- 


l«- 


<t- 


■o 


■o 




.f— 


•r- 


.1— 


«J 


lO 


^ 


^- 


p— 


^ 


> 


> 


«3 


<o 


UJ 


(O 


01 


Si 


O 


o 


o 


<_> 


z 


z 



42 






c 



c 
on 



en 






Ol 



OJ 



I. 

Ol 

> 
o 



r- O 








e 


1 








X 


>,(T. 








o 


r— t— H 








;_ 


Ol . 








a. • 


I- ct 


- — ^ 






Q. 0) 


f— 


• 


^~^ 




"o en 


4-> « 


0) 


• 


^ — ^ 


3 


c . 


CI 


<u 


• 


t/1 (*- 


0) z 


3 


en 


OJ 


Q. 0) 


"* 


14- 


3 


en 


t) «_ 


in i-i 


<v 


<4- 


3 


p^ 


«- 


<- 


<V 


14- 


l- <4- 


oC 




(- 


OJ 


0) o 


01 


M- 




;- 


> 


ciro 


O 


<*- 




o -a 


3 r-H 




o 


^ 


t- 


>t- • 


c 




Q 


00 .,- 


OJ 1- 


o 


C 


(- 


e; ^ 


q: — - 


4-> 


o 


u- 


i.; *j 




1- 


+J 


t/1 






o 


l- 


(U 






a. 


o 







c 


ai 


•r— 


CD 


^ 


T3 


4-J 


01 






5 


•u 




Vl 


>> 


<u 




X 


"oJ 




c 


1/) 


•r- 


Q. 


4-> 


<o 


C 




a> 


(- 




0) 


1/1 


> 


•r- 


o 


C/5 


(/I 


e> 


ts 


^ 


:ȣ 



•.- c 



X3 




C 


C 


TJ 


o 






JT 


Ol 


t/1 


OJ 


•r- 


ce 



a. 



> 
o 



O) 

L. 
3 
+J 
O 

3 



OO 



o 



5 
o 





(U 




en 




3 




<4- 


p— 


0) 


IC 


Or: 


c 




o 


01 


•^ 


1*- 


■!-> 


•f— 


in 


f— 


z 


T3 




r^ 








3 











I/O 
















cs 


I/O 


c 










t_ 


2..^ 


ts 


o 










•^ 




^ 












o 


H3 




4-> 










> 




IT3 


o 










I- 


-C 




3 










O) 


in 


J= 


■o 










<rt 


•^ 


m 


c 




^•^ 


<■ — ^ 




01 


^— 


• r— 


I- 




VI 


(/) 




o: 


^ 


r— 


a. 




- 


- 


.- s 




ID 


JD 






oo 


oo 


oo 


in 


4-> 


n3 


in 




e: 


t3 


tr 


i/i 


U1 


■t-> 


1^ 


oo 


:»i 


i^ 


^ 


c 


Ol 


in 


Ol 


o 








Lu 


o 
+J 

OJ 

> 

0) 

1_ 
1- 

01 
T3 

c 


Ol 

O 
■!-> 

01 

> 

0) 

t- 

C- 
OJ 


c: 

ID 

O 

+J 

in 
OJ 
in 
O 


:>^ 


0) 


tn 






3 


c 


Tj 





c o 

••- CI 

ITJ C 



•»J I— </) 

•■- ID •!- 

CD C/0 I— 



O 

3 

o- 

Si 



•a 



I/? 



o 



c 

ID 





>> 




I. 




lO 




3 




ID +J 




C U 


c 

ID 


5S 


E 


I/O 


f- 


ID 


01 


4-> 01 


en 


c E 


5 


<S3 



ID 

C 



c 
•a 



<D 






o 
u 



^ 







C 1— 




<D 


o >— 


>> 


<«- 


+J ID 


■)-> 


f— 


on jc 


c 


ID 


c on 


3 


<<- 


-C t_ 


O 


^— 


O ID 


o 


<: 


-o s: 



c 

ID 



c 


O 


c 


o 


3 


-f— 


o 


en 


O 


Ol 


(/I 


ID 


JZ 


3 


>> 


•a 




<•- 


ID 




ID 


OJ 


(- 


.^ 


<-) 


a: 


O 


3: 






o 



O 

o 





X 


^ 




Ol 


Q 


Ol 


s: 


£ 


*J 




ID 


ID 


3 


, — 


+-> 


01 


-i<: 


I/O 


21 


o 



c 

5 

ID 



ID 

e 
o 



ID 
X 

a; 



ID 


ID 


X 


X 


a; 


OJ 






u 



01 

3i 



43 



i/i 

01 

05 

3 
"»- 

a 

0) 

u 

> 

O) 
CO 





• 


un 








O) 




a' 


C 




. . 


c 


^ 






o 




• 








3 


■ •— 




LiJ 


t: 


c 




l*- 


4-> 




.— < 


s: 


4-> 




Ol 


L. 




CV' 








t. 


o 




« 




(/I 






Q. 




or 


a 


l- 




<t- 








on 


m 




o 


■a 




f 


(J3 


01 






<u 




• 


:^ 


a. 




n 


(. 




</) 




a. 




"^.^ 


0) 




t^ 


■o- 


IV 




CSJ 


4-> 




• 










-t-) 




1— 


"oJ 


^ — . 




c 


IJ 




^ 




■ 




t. 


o 






Ll_ 


u 




01 


w 




0) 




fO 




.c 






CTl 


e 






4-> 


Q. 




3 


o 


o . 




t_ 


<D 




U- 


-t-j 


r-^ (/I 




o 


r— 




OJ 


-^ 


r^ Qj 


c 


c 


I- 




l- 


S 


t— « -r— 


o 




OJ 






— - t- 




4-J 


> 




u- 




ro 


■t-j 


3 


o 




o 


c 


OJ -o 


Q. 


o 








OJ 


CJi C 


.^ 


^ 


t/i 




c 


c 


3 3 


I- 


13 


- 




o 


c 


•<- O 


U 




oo 




•^ 


0) 


QJ .Q 


01 


01 


tD 




•4-^ 


i- 


t_ 


(U 


Q. 


^ 




t- 


ca 


OO 


o 


"O 




• 


o 




14- CJ 






OJ 


Ol 


Q. 


c 


o :>i 




c_ 


01 


en 




•f— 




Q. 


01 


t. 


3 


OJ 


j:: 


C 0) 


ID 


> 


-C 


<t- 


1- 


j-> 


O T3 


r^ 


o 


•»-> 


O) 


u 


•^- 


•r— T— 


1- 






l- 


•n 


5 


+J 1/1 


OJ 


oo 


0) 




1 




t- +J 


> 


cr 


fE 


14- 


o 


1/1 


O 3 


o 


^ 


O 


CO 




Q. o 



T3 

C 



o 

Ol -1- 

C Ol 

H- Ol 

CL Q; 

o. 

I— (O 

I- i- 

O) ■!-> 

> c 

c « 

(/I 



OJ 

t- -a 

O 01 

-c E 

VI ^ 

0) c 

^ c 

ID 3 



ID C 

5 OJ 
E i" 



•f- -MO 



o 

■4-J 
4-> 

o 

CO 



01 

CO 



u 

3 

<. 
+J 
to 

o 

o 

o 

o 

& 



o 





«l 


oil 


3 


<4-l 




OJ 


ID 


a: 


C 




o 


OJ 


r- 


M- 


4-> 


-f— 


ID 


^- 


Z 


-o 


^ 1 






3| 



o 
o 



44 



I'.MOwn Geologic Structures riverlappinq ^ish and Wildlife Service Sefuges 

North Central Region 



State 



Wyoming 



Montana 



Montana 



Wildlife Refuge 
Seedskade 



Bowdoin 



Hewitt Lake 



North Dakota J. Clark Salyer 



North Dakota J. Clark Salyer 



North Dakota J. Clark Salyer 



North Dakota J. Clark Salyer 



North Dakota Upper Souris 



North Dakota Upper Souris 



North Dakota Upper Souris 



KGS 

Storm Shelter 



Bowdoin 



Bowdoin 



Kane 



Newburg-South 
West Hope 



Starbuck 



Starbuck 
Southwest 



Tol ley 



Lake Darling 



Unnaned 



Description of Overlap 

T.23N., R.lllW., 6th P.M., WY 
sec. 15, SE 1/4 SW 1/4 and 

S 1/2 SE 1/4; 
sec. 21, N 1/2 NE 1/4 and 

NE 1/4 NW 1/4. 

T.31N., R32E., P.M., MT 
sec. 28, SW 1/4. 

T.32N. . R32E., P.M., MT 

sec. 7, SE 1/4; Sec, 8, S 1/2; 

sec, 9. W 1/2 SW 1/4; sec. 16, NW 1/4; 

sec. 17, N 1/2; sec.l8. 

T.162N. , R.79W., 5th P.M., ND 
sec. 27, NE 1/4 SE 1/4; 
sec. 34, E 1/2 NE 1/4, 

T.161N., R.79W., 5th P.M., ND 
sec. 3, W 1/2 SE 1/4; 
sec, 10, NE 1/4 and NE 1/4 SE 1/4; 
seen, W 1/2 W 1/2, E 1/2 SW 1/4, 

and SW 1/4 SE 1/4; 
sec. 14, W 1/2 NE 1/4, NW 1/4, N 1/2 

SW 1/4 and NW 1/4 SE 1/4. 
T.162N., R.79W., P.M., MT 
sec. 17, SW 1/4. 

T.161N. , R78W., 5th P.M., NO 
sec. 19, W 1/2 SE 1/4; 
sec. 30, E 1/2. 

T.160N., R79W. , 5th P.M., ND 
seel, lots 3 X 4, S 1/2 NW 1/4; 

SW 1/4, and W 1/2 SE 1/4; 
sec, 2, lots 1 8 2, S 1/2 NE 1/4; 

and SE 1/4; 
sec. 12, 1/2 NE 1/4. NW 1/4, N 1/2 

SW 1/4, and NW 1/4 SE 1/4. 
T.161N., R.79W., 5th P.M., ND 
sec. 31, S 1/2 SE 1/4. 

T.161N. , R.aeW., 5th P.M., ND 
sec. 3, E 1/2 SW 1/4 and SE 1/4; 
sec. 10, NE 1/4 and N 1/2 SE 1/4. 

T.159N., R.85W., 5th P.M., ND 
sec. 35, E 1/2 SE 1/4; 
sec. 36, SW 1/4. 

T.159N., R.85W. , 5th P.M., ND 
sec. 22, NE 1/4. 



45 



County 



KNOWN GEOLOGIC STRUCTURE'S 
ARKANSAS (Counties) 
Number of KGS's 



Frank! in 


12 


Crawford 


4 


Logan 


5 


Sebastian 


5 


Yell 


1 


Johnson 


3 


Pope 


3 


Conway 




Faulkuer 




VanBuren 




CI eburne 




Miller 




Quachita 





Parrish 



^9 



E. Baton Rouge 


1 


St. Charles 


1 


Jefferson 


1 


LaFourche 


6 


Terreboune 


1 


Morehouse 


2 


Richland 


1 


Caldwell 


5 


Quachita 


2 


Union 


1 


Lincol n 


1 


Jackson 


1 


Bienville 


4 


Claiborne 


6 


Webster 


4 


Bossier 


4 


Caddo 


6 


DeSoto 


5 


Red River 


1 


Natchitoches 


2 


Winn 


3 


Catahoula 


1 


LaSalle 


3 


Grant 


2 


Cameron 


3 


Jefferson Davis 


2 


Vermill ion 


4 


Lafayette 


1 


St. Martin 


3 


Iberia 


1 


St. Mary 


4 


Iberville 


2 


Pointe Coupee 


2 


Plaquemines 


8 




94 



Total Acres 

1/1/83 

362,762 



LOUISIANA (Counties) 



Total acres 

1/1/83 

857,761 



46 

Senator Bradley. Would you provide some sense of the potential 
in each of those. 

Mr. Horn. Yes, sir. 

Senator Bradley. Let me ask you, how much money was spent 
for land acquisition in the last year? 

Mr. Horn. The aggregate appropriation was approximately $160 
million, parceled out among the National Park Service, the Fish 
and Wildlife Service, and the Forest Service. 

Senator Bradley. And this is for new acquisition? 

Mr. Horn. Well, it is basically acquisition of inholdings, and in 
some cases new areas. The Fish and Wildlife Service frequently ac- 
quires new areas that have been added to the system. The Park 
Service focuses on inholdings. 

Senator Bradley. But they were only inholdings within the exist- 
ing wildlife refuges or parks? 

Mr. Horn. No, the Park Service, at least in my area, focuses on 
buying lands within Congressionally authorized boundaries. The 
Fish and Wildlife Service authority is somewhat different. It can 
identify parcels it deems to be important. 

Once those are acquired, we have the administrative authority to 
deem those acquired lands a unit of the wildlife refuge system. 

Senator Bradley. But when it says new land acquisitions, do you 
interpret that to mean inholdings within existing parks and refuge 
areas, or do you interpret that to mean adding new parks? 

There is a long list — as you are aware, there is a long list of 
things that have been authorized, but never purchased. 

Mr. Horn. Most are inholdings. 

Senator Bradley. Well, in terms of, would you view this as reve- 
nues that could be used for something other than inholdings? 

Mr. Horn. Well, as I said, with the National Park Service, we 
are constrained to purchase lands that are inside Congressionally 
authorized boundaries. The only place that we can acquire land 
beyond the boundaries is for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and 
generally there we pick up lands that are important for migratory 
waterfowl with migratory bird funds, or we purchase lands that 
are important for endangered species with the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. 

Then, after we have acquired x acres, we administratively desig- 
nate those lands as part of the refuge system. So, I would say that 
our park acquisitions are inholdings-driven; our refuge acquisitions 
are partially inholdings, partially for migratory waterfowl, and 
partially for endangered species. 

Senator Bradley. Let us say that I introduced a bill to declare 
Montgomery County a national park. Would the money be avail- 
able to purchase any lands in this newly authorized park? 

Mr. Horn. Not at this time. As a matter of fact, one of the issues 
that we have addressed in the past is that when Congress sets 
these units up, we have expressed concern about making sure that 
simultaneously we identify sources of revenue or means of acquir- 
ing the land to be added to these units of the system. 

Senator Bradley. So it is your view of the legislation that none 
of the money could be spent to purchase land in new elements of 
the parks system? 



47 

Mr. Horn. No, if Congress authorizes a new unit of the parks 
system and draws a dotted line on the map, we would then have 
the authorization to expend funds generated by this mechanism to 
acquire the lands inside that Congressionally authorized boundary. 

Senator Bradley. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. Senator Wallop. 

Senator Wallop. Mr. Chairman, first let me ask that a state- 
ment that I have in general support, expressing some reservations 
on behalf of the Western Governors, be inserted in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Wallop follows:] 



48 



statement by Senator Malcolm Wallop, a Senator from Wyoming 
Before the Public Lands, National Parks and Forests Subcommittee 

Hearing on S. 735, a bill to amend the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund Act of 1965, and for other purposes 

Good afternoon. Mr. Chairman, I shared with you, as a co-member 
of the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors, the concerns 
which the Commission faced in providing funding for the 
recommendations of the Commission. As you know, I declined to support 
the recommendation for a funding not subject to the appropriation or 
budget realities of our time. 

Your bill provides a minimum base of $160 million annually to be 
spent without further appropriation and would have the potential of 
added millions of dollars should your bill be enacted, and leasing and 
production occurs in ANWR. 

Under current law the prospective mineral leasing receipts from 
ANWR would not be distributed to the Reclamation Fund. The State of 
Alaska currently receives 90 percent of mineral leasing revenues; 10 
percent goes to the Treasury. 

The State of Alaska has concerns with possible changes in that 
ratio. Leasing revenues from units of the National Wildlife Refuge 
System established from the public domain are credited in accordance 
with the provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 191) 50 
percent to the state in which the refuge is located and 50 percent to 
the U.S. The 50 percent federal portion is further divided with 40 
percent going to the Reclamation Fund and 10 percent to Treasury. 

The Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388) which 
established reclamation of the arid and semiarid lands of the West as 
a federal activity, included the provision that financing of the 
Federal undertaking should be accomplished through the Reclamation 
Fund, a special fund to be established within the Treasury of the 



m 



49 



United States. The fund was duly established and supported in the 
beginning by proceeds from sales of public lands of the United States. 
It was later augmented by a percentage of the royalties from oil and 
other mineral leases on lands of the United States, collections from 
the projects, and from other sources. 

Although not a lot of money accrues to the Reclamation Fund from 
ineral leasing on units of the National Wildlife Refuge System 
established from the public domain, I have several reservations about 
the precedent established. The Western Governors have expressed some 
of the same concerns and the State of Alaska has major heartburn. 

Let's assume that Congress does establish a permanent 
appropriation as contemplated in S. 735. I would argue for a 
different distribution formula which would have a state portion and 
perhaps a development portion for the federal side as contemplated by 
the drafters of the original Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. 
But that is all hypothetical. 

My understanding is that the Budget Committee is objecting to the 
formula and permanent appropriation authority in the Park Fee bill 
(H.R. 1320 as reported). This is the glue that holds the fee issue 
together. Without those funds going to the areas as decided by the 
Committee, I'm not sure the effort is worth it. The same applies to 
S. 735. 

The distribution of the mineral royalties and receipts is a well 
established precept with equity. We must be very careful in 
read j ustments . 



50 

Senator Wallop. I want to explore something here, because I 
think it is a little alarming. I do not think this in any way con- 
strains itself to the acquisition of just new lands. 

Senator Bradley. No, I was not saying it constrains itself to just 
the acquisition. I was saying, would it be permissible under the Act 
to acquire new lands. I was not saying, are you confined to that. 

Senator Wallop. Well, I do not think in either dimension that it 
says yes or no. 

Senator Bradley. That is why I was asking him what his inter- 
pretation is. 

Senator Wallop. The problem is, and I want to examine just one 
thing, the view of the Department on the recent court case in Cali- 
fornia, and whether it has implications to you on the huge backlog 
of authorized but unacquired and unfunded lands in the systems of 
the national parks, the national wildlife refuge system, or scenic 
areas, or recreation areas, or all the other things that we authorize 
here? 

Is it the view of the Department that the case has a potential 
impact? 

Mr. Horn. It has raised substantial concerns, and I would say 
that it is just one more concern that has been added to a growing 
list. 

When we look at acquisitions, for example, we have found that 
we end up in condemnations, that we end up spending about 150 
percent of our appraised price if we go through condemnation. If 
we are forced to the point where we have to file a declaration of 
taking, we are losing awards and they are generally in the vicinity 
of 200 percent of our appraised value. 

I think most of the members of the Committee are aware of the 
adverse ruling we had in the Redwoods case that now puts our li- 
ability for completing that unit of the park system at over a billion 
dollars. 

We add those up, coupled with the recent Supreme Court case, 
and I think that the level of exposure that we are facing on inhold- 
ings is growing. Of course, we have been stuck in the box of, on the 
one hand, trying to deal with the budgetary constraints and, on the 
other hand, trying to acquire some of these needed lands that are 
important for wildlife or to minimize takings exposure. 

Hence, that is why we have been so active in the land exchange 
business, or at least trying to be active. 

Senator Wallop. Well, I am all for that, having worked so hard 
to get there. You have heard me express my anxiety as to what is 
going to happen with Congress' huge appetite for authorizing, 
having no stomach at all for appropriating. 

I mean, we will authorize anything and fight when it comes to 
authorizing an area, but when it comes down to paying for it, we 
just don't do it. There is no real passionate pursuit of providing 
funding from any corner. 

People will say from time to time that somebody ought to do 
something about this or that, but we have exercised no restraint at 
all. And that is one reason why I am in general support of this bill 
and hope that, while nothing prohibits it from new acquisitions, I 
hope that our acquisitions of newly authorized — I hope that the 



51 

Congress can find it in itself to restrain its authorizing, so that it 
deals somewhat with this enormous backlog. 

But the Redwoods case is now a billion dollar backlog. That back- 
log that we were talking about around two to four billion dollars is 
probably somewhere between six to nine billion dollars. 

Senator Bradley. Do you mean that authorized purchases total 
$6 to $9 billion? 

Senator Wallop. I would think we are very close to that by now, 
given the court rulings. 

The Chairman. If the Senator would yield. It is certainly the in- 
tention of the bill to deal with that authorized backlog, not to pre- 
clude some new priority if the Congress feels that it should be 
there, but principally to deal with that backlog. 

Senator Wallop. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you very much, and we look 
forward to hearing from you as further advice on this matter. 

Mr. Horn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Next we have John W. Katz, Director of State 
and Federal Relations and Special Counsel to the Governor of 
Alaska, accompanied by Thomas Koester, Assistant Attorney Gen- 
eral from the Alaska Department of Law. 

Senator Murkowski. Mr. Chairman, I would like the record to 
note that Senator Stevens will have a statement for the record, and 
I would appreciate it if you would accommodate that. ^ 

The Chairman. Yes, we will hold the record open for him. 

Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Gentlemen, if you could summarize. We have an- 
other five witnesses and a panel after you, and I personally have 
got about 25 minutes to deal with this. And so if you would please 
proceed. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. KATZ, DIRECTOR OF STATE/FEDERAL 
RELATIONS AND SPECIAL COUNSEL TO GOV. STEVE COWPER, 
STATE OF ALASKA; ACCOMPANIED BY G. THOMAS KOESTER, 
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. Katz. Mr. Chairman, for the record my name is John Katz. I 
am Director of State/ Federal Relations and Special Counsel to the 
Governor. 

With me today is Tom Koester of the Alaskan Department of 
Law. We will briefly summarize our written testimony. 

The state is strongly opposed to the enactment of S. 735. We are 
joined in this opposition by 15 of the 16 members of the Western 
Governors Association, by the National Association of Counties, by 
the Water Resources Association, and by several conservation 
groups. 

We believe that the Alaska Statehood Act represents a solemn 
compact between the federal government and the state of Alaska. 
Section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act is part of that compact. 

Pursuant to that compact, the state is entitled to 90 percent of 
the federal share of revenues derived from mineral leasing. We be- 
lieve that the Statehood Act is a binding contract between the fed- 



' Senator Stevens' statement appears on page 8. 



52 

eral government and the state, and that it can be altered only with 
the consent of the state and of the federal government. 

The legislative history of the Alaska Statehood Act demonstrates 
that section 35 and the mineral leasing formula contained therein 
was viewed by the Congress as a fundamental and integral part of 
the Alaska Statehood Act. 

There is a popular misconception that Alaska receives 90 percent 
of mineral revenues, whereas other states receive only 50. In fact, 
that is not the case. The Congress made a conscious decision during 
the Statehood Act debates not to include the state of Alaska in the 
reclamation formula, and since we are not entitled to the 40 per- 
cent that would have been represented by our inclusion in the 
many millions of dollars that would have flowed from our inclusion 
in the fund — that decision we think was premised on sound 
grounds. 

The fund just would not operate very well in Alaska. It is more 
adapted to this arid and semi-arid West, where large irrigation and 
impoundment projects make sense. Our short growing seasons and 
harsh climate and topography indicate that agriculture on that 
widespread basis would not be viable in Alaska. 

The legislation pending before you would amend the Reclamation 
Act by eliminating funding in the reclamation fund. Instead, funds 
would be divided equally between the states and the federal gov- 
ernment. 

Similarly, it would amend the Wildlife Refuge Sharing Act by 
eliminating the 25 percent that now goes to counties from mineral 
development within refuges, and would alter the share that goes to 
the federal government. 

We believe that these amendments would create a pernicious 
precedent; that there has been an understanding and a compromise 
between the states and the federal government with respect to land 
located within their boundaries, and in recognition of the fact that 
that land, that federal land, is not subject to state control or tax- 
ation, these revenue sharing formulas have been enacted into law. 

The state of Alaska we think represents the most compelling in- 
stance of a compact between the federal government and the state. 
If our revenue sharing formulas can be amended in the way pro- 
posed by S. 735, then we believe we are embarked on a slippery 
slope where there may be no bottom. 

Despite the fact that the legislation appears neutral on its face, 
there is no question in our minds that it targets Alaska for special 
treatment. The unique combination of Alaskan geology, federal 
law, and federal policy indicates to us that, with the possible excep- 
tion of the Delta Refuge in Louisiana, there will probably not be 
very much future leasing within refuge except possibly in Alaska 
in general and with respect to ANWR in particular. 

This legislation would hit the state at a particularly critical time 
in our history. We continue to suffer from an embryonic infrastruc- 
ture. In fact, our road mileage is less than northern Virginia. 

We suffer from some of the worst housing under the American 
flag. At the present time, we are in the throes of a recession cre- 
ated by reduced oil prices. As a consequence, there have been mas- 
sive mortgage foreclosures, unemployment, and a cutback of state 
services. 



53 

We support the worthy goals of the Land and Water Conserva- 
tion Fund and our testimony should not be construed to the con- 
trary. But even a cursory examination of the fund indicates that 
the problem is not with income. In fact, receipts from designated 
sources such as OCS leasing and other sources are several times 
more than the authorized limitation of $900 million that Congress 
has provided. 

In fact, the problem is not at the income stage, but at the appro- 
priations stage. There, our research indicates that only once has 
Congress appropriated even at the two-thirds level of $900 million, 
and in six out of the last ten years the appropriations have been 
significantly less than half of the authorized limit. 

We think that the $160 million that would be earmarked in S. 
735 still does not solve the problem of authorization and appropria- 
tion. We believe that there is a direct relationship between this leg- 
islation and the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 

The Cooper Administration strongly supports opening ANWR to 
oil and gas development, subject to reasonable regulation. But we 
believe that there are compelling reasons for affirming that deci- 
sion and the legislation of this type, which would indirectly affect 
the decision, is not necessary. 

We do not intend to turn this hearing into a hearing on the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, but it is worth noting our increas- 
ing dependence on foreign sources of crude oil, the fact that Prud- 
hoe Bay will begin to decline precipitously in the near future, and 
that respectable geologists feel that the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge represents the last — the most promising unexplored petrole- 
um province in North America. 

Mr. Chairman, for these reasons we respectfully urge you to take 
no further action on S. 735. If you feel compelled to do so, we feel 
that at a minimum this legislation should be considered within the 
context of a comprehensive re-examination of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Katz follows:] 



54 



TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. KATZ 
BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS 
July 14, 1987 

Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee: 

My name is John W. Katz. I am Director of State/Federal 
Relations and Special Counsel to Governor Steve Cowper of 
Alaska. With me today is Tom Koester of the Alaska Attorney 
General's office. 

I will present an overview of the State's concerns with 
respect to S.735, and Mr. Koester will describe the legal 
underpinnings of our position. We appreciate this 
opportunity to explain the views of the State on this 
legislation. 

The State must oppose the enactment of S.735 on legal and 
policy grounds. 

In our opinion, such enactment would violate the solemn 
compact between the United States and the State of Alaska 
which is embodied in the Alaska Statehood Act. The Act 
incorporates Section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920. 
As a consequence, the State is entitled to 90% of the 
governmental share of bonuses, rentals, and royalties 
derived from the leasing of certain Federal public lands 
within the State. 

We view the Statehood Act as a binding contract which was 
entered into knowingly and voluntarily by the people of 
Alaska and by the Federal government through Congressional 
enactment. This contract can only be altered by the consent 
of both parties. It is also worth noting that the 
legislative history of the Statehood Act demonstrates the 
intent of Congress to adopt special revenue sharing formulae 
in Alaska in recognition of the large amount of Federal land 
located there and the lack of infrastructure and other 
needed development. 

Another principal reason for Congress's decision to provide 
Alaska with a larger revenue share than that which pertains 
to other western states was the concomitant decision to deny 
Alaska access to the Federal Reclamation Fund. In essence, 
the fund gives reclamation states an additional 40% of the 
proceeds derived from oil and gas leasing. The fund is 
primarily utilized in the arid and semi-arid West for 
irrigation and the construction of impoundment projects. 

Alaska's topography, harsh climate, short growing seasons, 
etc. led Congress to conclude that the Reclamation Fund 
should not become operative in the State. As a consequence, 
we have been denied many millions of dollars which would 
represent the State's share of mineral revenues that were 
included in the fund for subsequent allocation to other 
western states. 

Fui. Liici. , it is imporUaiiL ..^ ..^L<, ^I.w_ T.... 
amends the Reclamation Act of 1902 and thereby reduces the 
western states' share of revenues. Funds which would have 
been credited to the Reclamation Fund under existing law 
would be deposited in the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
and miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury under S.735. 
Similarly, S.735 amends the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act. 
Funds which would be divided between the county where the 
Refuge is located and the Federal government under current 
law would be divided between the states and the Federal 
government under S,735. 



55 



Although S.735 could affect other states and local 
governments, we believe that the bill targets Alaska for 
especially harsh treatment. This legislation purportedly 
would apply to any mineral leasing which occurs after the 
date of enactment within a National Wildlife Refuge. With 
the exception of the Delta Refuge in Louisiana, only the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and perhaps other refuges in 
Alaska present any realistic likelihood of leasing within 
the foreseeable future. In other states, a combination of 
Federal law, policy, geology, and subsurface ownership 
greatly limits the prospect of the generation of significant 
Federal revenues from S.735. 

Mineral revenue sharing formulae provided by the Federal 
government to the western states represent a very conscious 
decision to compensate these states and local governments 
for the existence of Federal lands over which they have 
little control and no taxing authority. S.735's amendment 
of the Reclamation Act, Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, the 
Refuge Revenue Sharing Act, and the Alaska Statehood Act 
establishes a precedent for future actions which would have 
greater monetary impacts on states and local governments. 
This precedent is particularly troubling because in many 
ways, Alaska's case for retention of its entitlement under 
the Statehood Act is more compelling from a legal and policy 
point of view than the arguments which could be mounted by 
other states. Therefore, S.735 could well mark the 
beginning of a slippery slope which could cause a 
deficit-conscious Congress to enact future legislation 
adversely affecting other revenue sharing formulae. 

Mr. Chairman, we strongly support the purposes of the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund. Clearly, the fund fosters 
habitat protection and land acquisition, where appropriate, 
on Federal lands. However, our research indicates that the 
fund does not suffer from lack of sufficient revenue sources 
to achieve these purposes. 

As you know. Congress has previously authorized the annual 
expenditure of $900 million from the fund. Yet, the amount 
of revenue flowing into the fund from sources previously 
designated by Congress exceeds this ceiling by a significant 
margin. Moreover, the Federal government has never spent 
more than two-thirds of the authorized amount, and in six of 
the last 10 years, the annual expenditure has been 
considerably less than half. 

Thus, if the fimd has not completely met its laudable 
objectives, the problem does not appear to be with the 
availability of sufficient revenues. Rather, the difficulty 
is with Congressional allocations at the other end of the 
funding process. If this is true, we are at a loss to 
understand why the iinauLmenil ul S.735 is necessary, 
particularly in view of the considerations referred to 
previously. 

Enactment of S.735 would come at a particularly difficult 
time in Alaska's history. The State still suffers from the 

lack of v'C- ^ '^'^■"0^ oped infrast'^'-"'t""'^'* =nH ot-Vio>- ->^.>f-/" - 

economic problems. With the marked reduction in the world 
price of oil upon which Alaska is so dependent, our people 
are experiencing severely depressed economic conditions, 
including high unemployment, widespread mortgage 
foreclosures, and significant cutbacks in State services. 
While Alaska's leaders are doing their best to diversify the 
State's economy and to take other necessary measures, it may 
be years, if ever, before the State fully recovers. In 
these circumstances, to reduce possible revenues in the 
manner suggested by S.735 would represent an especially hard 
blow. 



56 



The Cowper Administration strongly supports oil and gas 
development in the coastal plain of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) , subject to appropriate environmental 
stipulations. We recognize that S.735, by altering existing 
revenue streams , might generate some additional support for 
opening ANWR. We believe, however, that there are many 
compelling reasons for authorizing such development without 
resorting to the indirect means contained in S.735. These 
reasons include the need to find new domestic oil sources at 
a time of rapidly decreasing production, to reduce our 
negative balance of trade, to enhance National security, and 
to create additional sources of revenue and jobs in Alaska 
and throughout the Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, for the reasons outlined here, we respectfully 
urge the committee to forego any further action on S.735. 
Thank you for your consideration of our position. 



57 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Katz. 

I might say that we do not regard, at least I do not regard, this 
as taking anything from Alaska, because drilling on ANWR is not 
now permitted and it will be permitted only under such terms and 
conditions, if ever, as the Congress specifies. 

And you know what all the arguments are and I will not repeat 
them here. But other states do have a 50-50 share, and that is the 
basis of the 50-50 here. 

Is there anything further? 

STATEMENT OF G. THOMAS KOESTER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY 
GENERAL, STATE OF ALASKA 

Mr. KoESTER. Just a few brief comments, if I might, Mr. Chair- 
man. 

My name is Tom Koester, Assistant Attorney General from the 
State of Alaska. Mr. Katz alluded to the fact that Alaska views the 
90 percent entitlement from federal lands in Alaska under the 
Mineral Leasing Act as an element of the statehood compact. 

And as the chair undoubtedly knows, the Supreme Court has 
characterized the provisions of the Statehood Act in terms of a 
compact as "an unalterable condition of the admission, obligatory 
upon the United States." 

So as Senator Murkowski said, if it is indeed a provision of the 
statehood compact, it cannot be amended without the concurrence 
of the State of Alaska. 

The legislative history of the Alaska Statehood Act makes clear 
that indeed Congress considered at great length the 90 percent en- 
titlement. 

The Chairman. I have read that statement. 

Mr. Koester. Perhaps the most significant comment was one 
that was made on the floor of the Senate, in which Senator Butler 
of Maryland stated — he reminded his Senate colleagues that grants 
in the statehood act are irrevocable and cannot be changed by a 
subsequent Congress, and he said: 

A bill which grants statehood is not some minor piece of legislation, but it is a 
major function of the national legislature. We cannot undertake to perform that 
function without reminding ourselves that we are asked to make a grant which 
cannot be revoked. 

We cannot, therefore, consider these bills as we would ordinary legislation, in the 
sense that ordinary legislation may be amended or changed in subsequent years as 
experience dictates. 

But I would simply remind the Committee that Alaska does view 
this 90 percent entitlement as an element of the statehood com- 
pact. It was characterized by one Congressional Committee as a 
"major provision" of the Alaska Statehood Act. 

We would urge the Committee to keep in mind that a modifica- 
tion of that formula with respect to federal public lands in Alaska 
would have no effect without Alaska's concurrence. 

Congress' inclusion of that formula was merely a reflection of 
the understanding and the historic compromise that was made in 
the 1920 Mineral Leasing Act, whereby the traditional policy of the 
federal government to dispose of lands to encourage western migra- 
tion, settlement, and development was changed to one of retaining 



58 

title in the federal government, but dedicating 90 percent of the 
economic benefits from those lands to the states. 

So it is more than just for Alaska. It is an element of the state- 
hood compact, but it is also a much broader public policy that has 
guided more than 60 years of federal land management. 

We would urge Congress to be very cautious in changing that 
historic compact. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Koester follows:] 



59 



TESTIMONY OF G. THOMAS KOESTER 
BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
PUBLIC LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS AND FORESTS 
July Ih, 1987 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My name is G. Thomas Koester. I am an Assistant Attorney General 
for the State of Alaska. 

The State of Alaska opposes S.735 on both legal and policy 
grounds. As a legal matter, we view S.735 as an impermissible 
attempt to amend a major component of the statehood compact under 
which Alaska was admitted to the Union. As a matter of policy, 
S.735 would abrogate the historic compromise in public land law 
under which the United States changed its policy of disposing of 
federally owned lands to one of retaining title but dedicating 
the proceeds of those lands to the states in which the lands are 
located. 

Section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, 30 U.S.C. § 191, 
currently governs the distribution of revenues from oil and gas 
leasing of federal public domain lands. Under that statute, 90 
percent of those revenues are dedicated to the benefit of the 
states in which the lands are located. In the lower 48 states, 
this dedication takes the form of a direct grant of 50 percent of 
the revenues and deposit of an additional AO percent in the 
Reclamation Fund, established under the Reclamation Act of 1902, 
43 U.S.C. §§ 372 et seq. Because Alaska is not covered by the 
Reclamation Act, Alaska receives the full 90 percent under the 
statute. 

This dedication of federal oil and gas revenues to the states 
represented a historic compromise in the history of public land 
law. Around the turn of the century, there was a major change in 
federal land policy. The traditional practice of federal land 
disposal to encourage development and western migration was 
abandoned, and a new policy of federal land retention was 
instituted. To compensate the states for this continued federal 
ownership, which in many cases precludes economic development and 
in all cases precludes state and local taxation. Congress 
dedicated 90 percent of the mineral leasing revenues from those 
lands to the states. 

During Congressional consideration of statehood for Alaska, 
considerable attention was given to the distribution of mineral 
leasing revenues from federal lands in Alaska. The result of 
those lengthy deliberations was that the revenue distribution 
provisions of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 were expressly 
incorporated into the Alaska Statehood Act. 

The provisions of a statehood act admitting a new state to the 
Union constitute a compact -- a legally enforceable contract -- 
between the citizens of the new state and the United States. 
Such a compact does not impose obligations only on one of the 
parties; instead, obligations are imposed on both the new state 
and the United States. The specific terms of such a compact are 
obligatory and subsequently cannot be unilaterally amended by 
either party. As the United States Supreme Court once noted with 
respect to the Act admitting Wisconsin to the Union, a statehood 
act provision is "an unalterable condition of the admission, 
obligatory upon the United States." Beecher v. Wetherby , 95 U.S. 
(5 Otto) 517, (1877). 

Congress incorporated the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 into the 
compact under which Alaska was admitted to the Union in section 
28(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act. In part, this undoubtedly was 
no more than Congressional recognition of the long-standing 
policy, applicable to virtually all of the western states, of 
dedicating 90 percent of the proceeds of public lands to the 



60 



states in which the lands are located -- i.e. , the historic 
compromise adopted in 1920. 

At the same time, however, the legislative history of the Alaska 
Statehood Act makes clear that Congressional incorporation of the 
Mineral Leasing Act in the statehood compact also was Congress' 
way of partially compensating Alaska for the substantial amount 
of federal land which had been withdrawn and reserved by the 
federal government for various purposes , and the attendant loss 
of economic productivity caused by those withdrawals and 
reservation. Ironically, a number of those withdrawals and 
reservations were for wildlife refuges, the specific federal 
lands for which S.735 seeks to change the revenue distribution 
formula. 

To fully appreciate Congress' incorporation of the Mineral 
Leasing Act's 90 percent entitlement for Alaska in the statehood 
compact under which Alaska was admitted, one must look at the 
facts confronted by Congress at that time. A significant concern 
during the deliberations on Alaska statehood was whether the 
Alaska economy was sufficient to support a new state and the 
essential government services which the new state would have to 
provide. Much of that concern was a result of the fact that more 
than 99 percent of all the land in Alaska was owned by the feder- 
al government. Little or no development had taken place because 
of federal land management practices, and federal land therefore 
was not contributing to the economic development of the terri- 
tory. In addition, because it was federally owned, it would be 
exempt from any taxes which might be levied by a new state 
government. 

To ensure that the new State of Alaska would have sufficient 
economic resources to meet the necessary expenses of state 
government. Congress included a substantial land grant in the 
Alaska Statehood Act. In doing so, however. Congress discovered 
that more than one-fourth of the land in Alaska -- more than 95 
million acres -- was included in federal withdrawals and 
reservations, several of which were wildlife refuges. Those 
withdrawn and reserved lands appeared to include most of the 
valuable resources in Alaska. 

As a partial remedy to this situation, which one committee report 
characterized as "the problem of federal reservations," Congress 
consciously granted Alaska 90 percent of the oil and gas leasing 
revenues from federal lands in Alaska. Characterizing this as 
one of the "major provisions" of the Alaska Statehood Act, 
Congress concluded that this would minimize the adverse impact of 
federal withdrawals on the new state's economic viability and 
would ensure that the new state would benefit from any develop- 
ment of the substantial resources which might be found within 
those federal withdrawals. 

Attached to the printed text of my testimony are a number of 
excerpts from the legislative history of the Alaska Statehood Act 
which demonstrate that both supporters and opponents of Alaska 
Statehood were well aware that Congress was including, as part of 
Alaska's statehood compact, an entitlement to 90 percent of all 
oil and gas lease revenues from federal lands in Alaska in 
perpetuity. VThile it would serve no purpose to go over all of 
them in detail, a few examples illustrate the broader Con- 
gressional understanding. 

Senator Barrett of Wyoming, a supporter of statehood for Alaska, 
authored the language of what became section 28(b) of the Alaska 
Statehood Act, the section that incorporates the Mineral Leasing 
Act into the statehood compact. During a Senate hearing on 
statehood for Alaska, he remarked: "So I think it would be 
eminently fair and just and right and proper, when we write 
this bill up, that we . . . let the Federal Government retain 
the title to the minerals except such public lands as are granted 
to you, but give the Territory now and the State of Alaska-to-be 
ninety percent of the income from the minerals under the Leasing 
Act royalties that come in from now on out." Later in the 

- 2 - 



61 



hearing, he introduced the language that now appears as section 
28(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act with the words: "I propose to 
insert a new section 21 on the last page of the bill and provide 
in here that 90 percent of the income from coal and 90 percent of 
the income from the leasing act minerals shall go to the new 
State of Alaska." He noted that the Secretary of Interior had 
suggested such a provision be included in the statehood bill. 

Representative Dawson of Utah, also a supporter of statehood for 
Alaska, commented on the House floor that "[t]hese [revenue 
sharing] provisions are the foundation upon which Alaska can and 
will build to the enormous benefit of the national economy shared 
by her sister States." 

Senator Talmadge of Georgia, an opponent of statehood, noted 
during the Senate floor debate that the Statehood Act land grant 
and the various revenue sharing measures, specifically including 
the entitlement to 90 percent of oil and gas leasing revenues, 
"have been referred to variously as a 'dowry' and 'the greatest 
giveaway of natural resources in the history of this country.'" 

Finally, and perhaps most significantly. Senator Butler of 
Maryland, a statehood opponent, reminded his Senate colleagues 
that grants made in statehood legislation are irrevocable and 
cannot be changed by a subsequent Congress: 

A bill which grants statehood is not some minor 
piece of legislation, but is a major function of 
the national legislature. We cannot undertake to 
perform that function without reminding ourselves 
that we are asked to make a grant which cannot be 
revoked. We cannot, therefore, consider these 
bills as we would ordinary legislation in the 
sense that ordinary legislation may be amended or 
changed in subsequent years as experience 
dictates . 

When placed in its proper historical perspective, it is not 
surprising that Congress included an entitlement to 90 percent of 
the proceeds from federal oil and gas leasing in the Alaska 
Statehood Act. The Mineral Leasing Act, and its revenue 
distribution formula under which 90 percent of the revenues from 
federal lands are dedicated to the states in which the lands are 
located, represents a historic trade-off in the development of 
public land law. In enacting it. Congress terminated its tradi- 
tional policy of disposing of the public lands. Instead, it 
determined that the federal government should retain those public 
lands, but should dedicate most of the mineral revenues from 
those lands to the benefit of the states in which the lands are 
located. 

Virtually all of the public land states were admitted to the 
Union prior to the enactment of the Mineral Leasing Act, and its 
dedication of 90 percent of public land revenues to the states, 
in 1920. As a result, the statehood acts admitting those states 
do not include a provision similar to the one incorporated in the 
Alaska Statehood Act. However, incorporation of the Mineral 
Leasing Act in the Alaska Statehood Act simply reflects the Con- 
gressional understanding that the Mineral Leasing Act indeed was 
a historic compromise and, as a result of that compromise, the 
public land states are to receive the benefit of 90 percent of 
the revenues from federal lands within their borders in return 
for the continued federal ownership and management of those 
lands . 

Passage of this bill would significantly alter one of the 
carefully considered terras and conditions under which Alaska was 
admitted to the Union. It would be an impermissible unilateral 
attempt to amend the solemn compact between the national 
government and the citizens of Alaska. Alaska has not agreed to 
this modification of the compact between Alaska and the United 



77-689 - 87 - 3 



62 



States and, without such agreement, it would have no force or 
effect. 

It also would signal a marked departure from the historic 
compromise, under which Congress dedicated 90 percent of the 
proceeds of the public lands to the states in return for 
continued federal ownership, which has guided federal public land 
policy throughout the United States for more than six decades. 

Alaska supports the goals of the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. At the same time, the state is concerned that these 
goals not be accomplished at the cost of a fundamental change in 
the provisions of the solemn compact under which Alaska entered 
the Union and the historic compromise which has guided federal 
public land policy for more than two generations. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on this bill. 
We hope that we can work constructively with this subcommittee 
and the Congress to improve the effectiveness of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund without sacrificing Alaska's statehood 
birthright and more than sixty years of federal public land 
policy. Again, thank you very much. 



63 



ALASKA STATEHOOD ACT LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: 

CONGRESSIONAL INCORPORATION OF MINERAL LEASING 

ACT 90% REVENUE SHARING FORMULA IN 

ALASKA STATEHOOD COMPACT 

1. During Senate hearings on Alaska Statehood, one 
senator explained that he thought the new State of Alaska should 
get all of the lands within its boundaries but, because that 
probably was not possible, the Statehood Act should include a 
grant of 90 percent of Mineral Leasing Act revenues "from now on 
out." 

Senator BARRETT. ... 



So I think it would be eminently fair and 
just and right and proper, when we write this bill 
up, that we provide here that the [Mineral] 
Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, and let them 
retain title to the lands up there, except that 
which is granted -- personally I hate to see that 
done, but to be realistic we probably have to do 
that -- let the Federal Government retain the 
title to the minerals except such public lands as 
are granted to you, but give the Territory now and 
the State of Alaska-to-be ninety percent of the 
income from the minerals under the Leasing Act 
royalties that come in from now on out. 

Hearings on S. 49 and S. 35 before the Senate Committee on Inte- 
rior and Insular Affairs, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. 30-31 (1957). 

2 . Later in those hearings , the same senator offered 
an amendment to the proposed statehood legislation under consid- 
eration which would provide that "90 percent of the income from 
the leasing act minerals shall go to the new State of Alaska," 
noting that the Secretary of Interior supported a bill under con- 
sideration in the House of Representatives which would do pre- 
cisely that but "suggested that the statehood bill was the proper 
place to insert such a provision." The language of the proposed 
amendment is identical to the language of what ultimately was 
enacted as section 28(b) of the Alaska Statehood Act. Both the 
author of the proposed amendment and one of his colleagues hoped 
that giving Alaska a 90 percent entitlement might ultimately 
result in their states getting the same thing. Whether that 
would result or not, however, they agreed that Alaska should 
receive such an entitlement as part of its statehood act. 

Senator ANDERSON. ... As far as I am con- 
cerned, I hope you [Alaska's non-voting Delgate 
Bartlett] would agree with me that what we tried 
to do was to make it possible for Alaska to come 



64 



in as a State and live self-respectingly among the 
States. 

We did not strip her of every dollar she 
could get, but tried to give her all the money to 
make Alaska a good and fine progressive State. I 
believe the bill does that. 



Senator BARRETT. ... I am offering an 
amendment here for the consideration of the 
committee. I think this is probably as good a 
time as any to do it. 

I discussed this amendment this morning when 
you were absent, Senator Anderson, I propose to 
insert a new section 21 on the last page of the 
bill and provide in here that 90 percent of the 
income from coal and 90 percent of the income from 
the leasing act minerals shall go to the new State 
of Alaska. 

When I mentioned that this morning. Delegate 
Bartlett told me that the House committee had con- 
sidered a' bill doing precisely that and had 
reported it out favorably. Since then I have 
looked up the record and I find that the Secretary 
of the Interior has filed a favorable report on 
the bill and agreed that it should be enacted into 
law but suggested that the statehood bill was the 
proper place to insert such a provision. 

Maybe it would be well to have in these 
hearings a copy of the report that the Secretary 
of the Interior made on the House bill. 

Senator JACKSON. Without objection, the 
report and the amendment of the Senator from 
Wyoming will be included in the record at this 
point, if that is agreeable. The report and the 
amendment should go together. 

(The documents referred to are as follows:) 

BARRETT AMENDMENT TO S. 49 

Sec. 22. . . . 



65 



(b) Section 35 of the Act entitled "An Act 
to promote the mining of coal, phosphate, oil, oil 
shale, gas, and sodium on the public domain," 
approved February 25, 1920, as amended (30 U.S.C. 
191) is hereby amended by inserting immediately 
before the colon preceding the first proviso 
thereof the following: ",and of those from Alaska 
52 1/2 per centum thereof shall be paid to the 
State of Alaska for disposition by the legislature 
thereof". 

[Secretary of Interior's Report] 

DEAR MR. ENGLE [Chairman of the House Commit- 
tee on Interior and Insular Affairs]: This is in 
reply to your request for the views of this 
Department on H. R. 3477, a bill relating to 
moneys received from mineral lands in Alaska. 

We recommend that H. R. 3477 be enacted. We 
believe, however, that the subject matter of the 
bill would be more appropriately covered in state- 
hood legislation. 



Senator ANDERSON. Do you not think Senator 
Barrett, that supplements the statement I made, 
that whatever makes it possible for the State to 
exist is a good bill? 

I think Senator Barrett should be conmended 
for that proposal. I thing there are some other 
States that the proposal could be applicable to 
but we may get our rights some time if Alaska 
does. 

Senator JACKSON. That may be a good prece- 
dent for the other 11 Western States. 

Senator ANDERSON. It happens that Wyoming 
and New Mexico are the 2 principal contributors to 
the Federal Treasury on this particular section, 
$100 million in Wyoming and $130 million or $140 
million in New Mexico which we could have used 
very nicely in our State. 



66 



Senator JACKSON, We may have some problems 
with the other 37 States on this issue. 

Senator BARRETT. I do not think so, particu- 
larly. I think we would be remiss a bit if we did 
not include it here, particularly since the Bureau 
of the Budget and the Secretary of the Interior 
and everyone interested has approved this. 

Hearings on S. 49 and S. 35 before the Senate Interior and 
Insular Affairs Committee, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. 66-67 (1957). 

3. A House committee report, in a section entitled 
"The Problem of Federal Reservations," noted that a partial solu- 
tion to the depressing effect of federal withdrawals on the eco- 
nomic viability of a new Alaska state government would be to 
specify that the act of admission would grant Alaska 52 1/2 per- 
cent of Mineral Leasing Act revenues. This would be in addition 
to the 37 1/2 percent that all other public land states receive 
because, while those states were covered by the Reclamation Act, 
Alaska would not be. 

As previously noted, tremendous acreages of 
land in Alaska have been tied up in the status of 
Federal reservations and withdrawals for various 
purposes. The committee feels strongly that this 
practice has been carried to extreme lengths in 
Alaska, to a point which has hampered the develop- 
ment of such resources for the benefit of mankind. 
As a result, a long list of potential basic indus- 
tries in the territory, including the forest 
industry, hydroelectric power, oil and gas, coal, 
various other minerals, and the tourist industry, 
can exist in Alaska only as tenants of the Federal 
Government , and on the sufferance of the various 
Federal agencies. The committee considers that to 
be an unhealthy situation. 

The failure of these industries to grow under 
such a restrictive policy is a proof of its 
unwisdom. The committee feels that this policy 
must be changed if statehood for Alaska is to be a 
success. 

In its approach to the statehood issue, the 
committee has attempted to make a start toward 
such a change by various specific provisions in 
the bill. . . . 



67 



A second provision in section 28 amends the 
Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, by grant- 
ing 52 1/2 percent per annum of the net proceeds 
realized from coal, phosphates, oil, oil shale, 
and sodium on the public domain in Alaska shall be 
paid to the State of Alaska for disposition by the 
legislature thereof. 

The payment of these proceeds is recommended 
in return for Alaska not being covered by the Rec- 
lamation Act of 1902, as amended. The Reclamation 
Act provides that in the 17 Western States 52 1/2 
percent of the oil- and gas-lease revenues goes 
into the reclamation fund; 37 1/2 percent is re- 
turned to the respective States , and the remaining 
10 percent is retained by the Federal Government 
for administration purposes. 

H.R. Rep. No. 624, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. 7-8 (1957). 

4, The same point is reiterated in the sectional 



analysis, 



Subsection [28] (b) amends the act to promote 
the mining of coal, phosphate, oil, oil shale, 
gas, and sodium on the public domain approved Feb- 
ruary 25, 1920, by providing that 52 1/2 percent 
of the proceeds received therefrom shall be 
covered into the State treasury for disposition by 
the State legislature. 

The payment of these proceeds is recommended 
in return for Alaska not being covered by the Rec- 
lamation Act of 1902, as amended. The Reclamation 
Act provides that 52 1/2 percent of the oil and 
gas revenues goes into the reclamation fund; 37 
1/2 percent is returned to the respective States 
and the remaining 10 percent is retained by the 
Federal Government for administration purposes. 

Id. at 23. 

5. A Senate Report made Alaska's entitlement to 90 
percent of federal oil and gas leasing revenues even clearer. 

Some of the additional costs connected with 
statehood will be met by granting the State a rea- 
sonable return from Federal exploitation of 

- 5 - 



68 



resources within the new State. In the past the 
United States has controlled the lion[']s share of 
such resources and, in some instances, retained 
the lion's share of the proceeds. This situation, 
though it has not proved conducive to development 
of the Alaskan economy, may have been proper at 
times when the United States paid a large part of 
the expense of governing the Territory. However, 
the committee deems it only fair that when the 
State relieves the United States of most of its 
expense burden, the State should receive a realis- 
tic portion of the proceeds from resources within 
its borders. The divisions of proceeds estab- 
lished in the bill are determined by comparisons 
with other States and consideration of the geo- 
graphic facts which apply to Alaska. 



Section 22 of the bill extends to the State 
the provisions of Public Law 88, 85th Congress, 
which was approved July 10 of this year. Under 
this new law the Territory receives a total of 90 
percent of the profits from government coal mines 
and 90 percent of the profits from operations 
under the Mineral Leasing Act. Prior to the 1957 
law, Alaska received none of the proceeds from 
government coal mines and 37 1/2 percent of the 
proceeds from mineral leasing operations. Without 
section 22 in the bill, the new State would not be 
within the purview of the 1957 act. 

S. Rep. 1163, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. 3 (1957). 

6. During the floor debate on Alaska statehood in the 
House of Representatives, one congressman outlined the relation- 
ship between the extensive federal withdrawals and the entitle- 
ment to 90 percent of all mineral leasing revenues which, in 
addition to the land grant, would form the "foundation" of 
Alaska's entry into the Union. 

Mr. DAWSON of Utah. . . . 

Further, over 92-million acres -- both in and 
out of the defense area -- already have been with- 
drawn by the Federal Government, and these include 
much of the most valuable resources. They in- 
clude, for example, nearly 21 -million acres of the 



69 



best forest lands and nearly 49-million acres of 
oil and gas reserves. 



As to that lion's share of lands which would 
remain under Federal control, Alaska would receive 
-- for the support of its public schools -- 5 per- 
cent of the net proceeds from the sale of any land 
by the Federal Government. 

Additionally, Alaska would receive 90 percent 
of the proceeds from the operation of Government 
coal mines and from the production of coal, phos- 
phates, oil, oil shale, and sodium from the public 
domain. Reflecting Alaska's exclusion from the 
Reclamatioin Act of 1902, these are the same pro- 
visions which this Congress approved -- by consent 
-- for the Territory of Alaska last year in Public 
Law 85-88. 



These provisions are the foundation upon 
which Alaska can and will build to the enormous 
benefit of. the national economy shared by her 
sister States. We cannot make Alaska a "full and 
equal" State in name and then deny her the where- 
withal to realize that status in fact. 

85 Cong. Rec. 9360-9361 (1958). 

7 . During the floor debate in the Senate , an opponent 
of statehood for Alaska argued that the sharing of mineral reve- 
nues with the new State of Alaska, as a means to "alleviate" the 
adverse effect of continued federal control of significant acre- 
age and resources, would result in Alaska being too dependent on 
those federal revenues. 

Mr. ROBERTSON. . . . 

The uniqueness of the Alaska land situation 
is further emphasized in the committee report, 
which points out that on the occasion of admission 
of existing States land grants amounted to a maxi- 
mum of 6 to 11 percent of the total land area, and 
much acreage already had passed into private 
taxpaying ownership, whereas in Alaska, even after 



70 



a grant of unprecedented propotions to the pro- 
posed State, the Federal Government would continue 
to control more than two-thirds of the total acre- 
age and an even larger percentage of the 
resources. 

To alleviate this situation to some extent, 
the bill proposes to share with the State profits 
from Government coal mines, mineral leases, and 
the fur monopoly, which, of course, would make the 
State government a pensioner dependent on the 
Central Government to a much greater extent than 
the existing States which already, in my opinion, 
have jeopardized their constitutional rights by 
too ready acceptance of Federal handouts for a 
variety of public works and welfare programs. 

85 Cong. Rec. 12020 (1958). 

8. A supporter of Alaska statehood introduced a De- 
partment of Interior memorandum outlining the "new sources of 
revenue available to Alaska," one of which was listed as "oil and 
gas leases (90 percent to the State)." Another supporter then 
pointed out that oil had just been discovered in Alaska, and that 
discovery "will have a tremendous impact on the ability of the 
new State to provide the essential resources to support itself." 

Mr. CHURCH. . . . 

Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from 
Florida will permit me to offer at this point in 
his address a memorandum which I have received 
from the Department of the Interior, which is 
directed to the very subject on which the Senator 
is now elaborating, namely, the capacity of Alaska 
to support statehood. 

We have heard in the course of this debate 
many exaggerated statements about how statehood 
would impose an impossible burden upon the 
undeveloped economy of Alaska. If one were to 
listen uncritically to such statements, one might 
be led to conclude that statehood would drive the 
Alaskan economy into insolvency and bring ruin 
upon the people there. 

I think this memorandum effectively gives a 
rebuttal to that argument, in that it shows 

- 8 - 



71 



precisely what the additional costs for statehood 
would be, and what the additional income to the 
newly formed State government would be, by virtue 
of the provisions contained in the pending bill. 



The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, 
the memorandum referred to by the Senator from 
Idaho will be printed in the Record. 

The memorandum is as follows: 



New Revenues Available to Alaska 

Oil and gas leases (90 percent 

to the State) $3,000,000 



Mr. JACKSON. . . . 

I should like to point out one further con- 
sideration' in connection with the financial abili- 
ty of the proposed new State to take care of its 
responsibilities. Just 11 months ago we witnessed 
the first oil strike of any substance in Alaska. 
A little more than a year ago about 5 million 
acres were under lease, or applications were 
pending with respect thereto. The most recent 
check, in May, showed 32 million acres covered by 
oil leases or lease applications. 

The program involves all the major oil compa- 
nies and numerous independent oil companies. We 
have been advised in the Committee on Interior and 
Insular Affairs, where some of the legislation on 
this subject is handled, that the signs are most 
hopeful for a tremendous oil development in the 
area which will become a State. 

I add that one point because it will have a 
tremendous impact on the ability of the new State 
to provide the essential resources to support 
itself. This is a factor not indicated in the 



9 - 



72 



Secretary's analysis of the ability of the new 
State to do the job. 

85 Cong. Rec. 12207-12208 (1958). 

9. An opponent of statehood again pointed to the 90 
percent entitlement in the statehood bill as evidence of the 
"prevailing doubt" regarding the ability of the new state to 
support itself. 

Mr. TALMADGE. . . . 

The prevailing doubt of Alaska's ability to 
support itself is evidenced by the generous 
special considerations which are made for it in 
this statehood act. 



In addition [to a large land grant] , it would 
be granted: 



Ninety percent of the profits from Government 
coal mines and operations under the Mineral Leas- 
ing Act, of which 37 1/2 percent of the latter 
would be earmarked for roads and schools. 



These considerations have been referred to 
variously as a "dowry" and "the greatest giveway 
of natural resources in the history of this 
country." 

85 Cong. Rec. 12297 (1957). 

10. Finally, the permanent and irrevocable nature of the 
granting of statehood was described. 

Mr. BUTLER. . . . 

Despite all its complex features, the primary 
purpose of the bill is to grant statehood. A bill 
which grants statehood is not some minor piece of 
legislation, but is a major function of the 
national legislature. We cannot undertake to 

- 10 - 



73 



perform that function without reminding ourselves 
that we are asked to make a grant which may not be 
revoked. We cannot, therefore, consider these 
bills as we would ordinary legislation in the 
sense that ordinary legislation may be amended or 
changed in subsequent years as experience 
dictates. . . . 



My research has also developed that there is 
contained in the bill provisions which have the 
effect of giving away more revenue and more prop- 
erty than has ever been given to any State in its 
enabling act. 

85 Cong. Rec. 12316-12317 (1958). 



- 11 



74 

The Chairman. We will certainly be very cautious in that, and 
we will pay due regard to that question, which I was not aware of, 
of your view that that is part of the condition of admittance of the 
state, which can be changed only with the consent of the state of 
Alaska. So we will get our legal eagles to work on that. 

Gentlemen, thank you very much. I am sorry to give you such a 
short period of time. You had an excellent statement which I have 
read and it is very well researched, and we will pay due and proper 
regard to that. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. Katz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Finally, we have a panel with: Barry Tindall, Di- 
rector of Public Works of the National Recreation and Park Asso- 
ciation — Director of Public Affairs, excuse me; Destry Jarvis, Vice 
President of the National Park and Conservation Association; Tim 
Mahoney, Washington Representative for the Sierra Club and 
Chairman of the Alaska Coalition; Lonnie Williamson, Vice Presi- 
dent, Wildlife Management Institute; Jack Berryman, Executive 
Vice President of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife 
Agencies. 

Gentlemen, welcome to the Committee. This is an outstanding 
panel. I hope you can quickly summarize, and I hate to give you 
short shrift, but we are going to have a vote shortly and then I 
have got a very high priority meeting after that to deal with what 
we call our 302(b) allocations from the Budget Committee on the 
Appropriations Committee, and that is really a very first priority. 

So Barry Tindall, why do you not begin. 

STATEMENT OF BARRY S. TINDALL, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC 
AFFAIRS, NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION 

Mr. Tindall. Mr. Chairman, we hope your 302(b) allocation is fa- 
vorable to your Committee, and especially favorable to the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund and its broad context. 

In that regard, I believe the Budget Committee assumed a distri- 
bution of about $250 million for land and water. We would hope 
you would keep your eye on that particular aspect of it. 

Hearing you say that in the context of this hearing gives me 
pause to say what I will say, but I wish we could be supportive of 
the present bill, but we in fact are not unless significant changes 
are made. 

The two features that we would like to just briefly call to your 
attention are: first is the fact that the Land and Water Conserva- 
tion Fund has from the outset been a partnership between the na- 
tional government, the states, local governments, and others. If the 
Congress in its wisdom decides to pursue S. 735 or some variations 
thereof, we would hope and would like to work with you to assure 
that in fact this partnership continues. 

The second aspect that we would call to your attention is that, if 
in fact again Congress in its wisdom decides to access the national 
wildlife refuge system for energy extraction activities, then we 
think the bulk, literally 100 percent, of any revenues that come out 
of those activities ought to be reinvested in conservation and recre- 
ation purposes. 



75 

That would diminish the potential for other pressures, namely 
say general fiscal support to a state or nation, to drive those deci- 
sions. If this Administration or any future Administration under- 
stands from the outset that whatever is developed goes back into 
recreation and conservation, then that may in fact cause a little 
different consideration of those decisions. 

Those are the two principal things that we would call to your at- 
tention in the interest of time today. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Tindall follows:] 



76 



STATEMEN"" OF NATIONAL P.ECP.EATIOK ANT PAHK ASSOCIATION OK £."^"'= BEFORE 
SUBCOMy.ITTEE OK P'JBLIC LANDS. NATIONAL PARKS ANL FORESTS. TOITEI^ STATES 
SENATE. JULY, 14, IPS? 



Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee: I am Barry S. Tindall, 
director of Public Affairs for the National Recreation and Park Association. 
We appreciate the opportunity to address proposed amendments to the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965. 

The Association is a national organization of 20,000 individuals, 
agencies and organizations. Our members include civic leaders and 
professionals who guide, develop and manage recreation and park services and 
resources, principally but not exclusively in the public sector. Our 
members include people working at all levels of general government and 
special districts, in the Armed Forces, in hospitals and other institutions 
serving special populations, and in academic settings. We have at least one 
affiliate organization in each state, and several in other countries. RRPA 
members have been centrally involved in activities authorized by the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund Act. 

S. 735 proposes to authorize the distribution of 25 percent of the 
income derived from the leasing of oil and gas resources in the Rational 
Wildlife Refuge System to a special account within the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund exclusively for Federal land acquisition. It does not 
directly authorize energy development in the refuge system, but the 
relationship is potentially close. 

While there are certain features of the bill with potential merit we 
cannot support enactment of the present measure. We say this reluctantly, 
because its author has been in the forefront of actions to enhance 
recreation through resource conservation. 



77 



Among our concerns: 
o The bill assumes in large part that the present problem associated with 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund includes the amount of revenue 
available to it. This is not the case. Rather, since fiscal year 1965 over 
$82 billion has accrued to the United States from Outer Continental Shelf 
activity. OCS is now the principal LWCF source. The problem is the 
nonavailability of funds, through appropriations or other means. 

o The bill, perhaps indirectly, encourages activities potentially 
detrimental to the type of resources proposed for protection by the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund Act eind other statutes. 

The bill fails to recognize that a central strength of the Land and 
Water Conaervation Fund Act is its ability to develop a partnership between 
the national government, the states, and others and to leverage investments 
by non-federal participants. It fails further to recognize the need for new 
LWCF constituencies. 

Notwithstanding these objections if the Committee and Congress 
determine that the legislation should pass we would strongly recommend 
amendments which achieve the following: 

All public receipts from activities on the National Wildlife Refuge 

System should be reinvested for conservation and recreation purposes . 

S.735 proposes a distribution formula which fails to fully recognize 
the magnitude of conservation and recreation needs and which might encourage 
local or other actions inconsistent with national conservation and 
recreation goals. We propose that 100 percent of all revenues associated 
with potential energy development activities be available to the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund. This distribution should remain in force for a 
significant time, perhaps 25 years. This approach would have the dual 
impact of greater conservation and recreation investments while 'dampening' 

- 2 - 



78 



extraotior. activities motivated principally by fiscal need. The natural 
resources under discussion here, and the fiscal resources that might result 
from their use, belong to all citizens. The return of 50 percent of 
receipts to a particular state fails to recognize this principle. 
o The States, and through the states, local governments, should 

participate in use of all funds available from the special account . 

The State/Federal distribution ratio should be 60/40 and the special 

account "base" of $160 million should be increased proportionately . 

Apportionment among the states should follow the existing formula . 

The Land and Water Conservation ?und has, since its authorization, 
functioned as a partnership between governments. The states and local 
governments have proven effective and efficient partners in defining and 
working toward national conservation and recreation goals. The Land and 
Water Conservation Fund Act's original distribution formula was 60 percent 
state and 40 percent federal. Until about 1980 appropriations generally 
followed this pattern. Recently, many organizations endorsed a series of 
concensus points on a potential future fund, including the 60/40 
distribution formula. 

Since its authorization state and local governments have invested over 
$3 billion in non-federal resources to equally match congressional LWCF 
appropriations. They have assumed all operational and other costs in 
perpetuity. Achievements are impressive: over 34,200 acquisition and 
development projects, and 2.3 million acres of land reserved for 
conservation and recreation purposes. Population growth and distribution, a 
continuing high demand for recreation opportunity, especially close to home, 
and rapidly deminishing land conservation opportunities all reinforce the 
need to strengthen this outstanding public partnership. 

- 3 - 



79 



Senator Johnston's introductory statement on S.''35 noted: "...T 
concede that much work remains to be done relative to these matters 
(reauthorization of LWCF) but I think that this approach of putting a 
variety of legislative vehicles and options before the Committee and the 
Senate will serve us well." 

S. 755 is one option. It contains features which, if developed more 
fully, could be supported in a more comprehensive bill. It recognizes, for 
example, that the gap between authorization and actual availability of funds 
must be substantially closed. The proposal recognizes, too, that in excess 
of $5 billion remains credited to the Land and Water Conservation Fund 
treasury account. Public agencies, land owners, and the present and future 
user public have every right to expect that public resources will be 
available to reasonably plan, conclude agreements, and provide recreation 
opportunity in a timely and efficient manner. 

We look forward to working with the Congress to achieve a viable 
funding program for parks and recreation. We believe that legislation which 
deals with fiscal resources for parks, recreation and conservation must 
ultimately recognize and embrace associated needs and conditions, among 
them: 

o The desirability of reinvesting some fiscal resources in a "corpus," 
which itself would ultimately provide revenue. 

The need for a new public focal point in government to administer the 
?und , and perform other functions to advance parks, recreation and leisure. 
An entity similar to the Rational Foundation for the Arts and Humanties, and 
its associated endowments should be considered. 

This concludes our prepared remarks. I would be pleased to respond to 
questions. 

- A - 



80 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Tindall. 

I would be interested in getting your specific comments on how 
you would want that formula changed, and we would like to have 
those conversations, either in writing or contact us. And we would 
like to have that. 

Mr. Tindall. I might just add as a footnote, Mr. Chairman, that 
I believe you stated at the outset of this hearing that consideration 
of this bill does not preclude further, and we hope timely, consider- 
ation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the many rec- 
ommendations of the President's Commission. 

The Chairman. Exactly. 

Mr. Tindall. We would reinforce our belief that that should 
occur and other dimensions should be looked at. 

The Chairman. Yes, I would, if I have my way — and I may not 
on this — I would like to pass this bill early on and just pretermit so 
many of those questions about the Outdoor Commission, because it 
would take a long time to do that. 

We will have the time, but I would like to put this bill in place if 
we can and then just forget about the fact that this bill was ever 
passed as we consider ANWR. To me, the worst thing would be to 
first pass ANWR and then come and then try to put this bill in 
place. 

You may think it is an easy thing to do, but I think it would be 
just absolutely impossible. I mean, you try to get a few bucks for 
an)d;hing out of that budget when you are fighting against other 
priorities and it is just virtually impossible. 

So if we put this bill in place, then we can come back later on at 
our leisure and look at what we do with the recommendations of 
the Great Outdoors Commission and the Land and Water Conser- 
vation Fund and all the rest of those things. 

But thank you very much for your suggestions. 

[Subsequent to the hearing Mr. Tindall submitted the following:] 



81 




National Recreation and Park Association 



J„1y T7 . 1 or 



'''hp Honor "iblp 

f^h H i rmrin 

Commi-'.tnc on "^nprpy tp.'I 

United Stites ^'enitp 

Washi n<T»on. CC ?0510 



'enn'^'-t .Tohns^on 

N^'urpl Pnsources 



D p ■! r r <■■ n -i 1 f J o h r s '. o n : 

Wp -ipprpciatR f. he invitation riurirp thf hpnrins to follow 
up with specific propospd nmpndmpnts to '^.7-'S, a bill to ampnd 
the I.-ind -^nd W<>tpr Honservation Fund. Thp proposed sracndmonts 
would implppipnt our two central rpcommcnd 1 1 i o ns : thnt tII 
receipts from pner^y activities on refuges ^o directly to 
conservation ^nd recreation purpos"S. ssnd that state 5nd lor^l 
govprntr.ents share in the resulting reinvestment program. 

tfp recomiend the following: 



Amend page 2, lines 2- 



t o read 



"issupd after thp date of enactment of this title 
shall he deposited in the Fund." 

Amend page 2 by striking lines ^-'^. 

Amend page 2. line 12 by striking ? 1 60. 000 . 000 and 
inserting in lieu thereof ''■400,000.000. 



Amend page 



lines 1'i-l'' to read as follows: 



"{2) Forty percent of the ff'lunds deposited into 
the special account shall be available, without 
further appropriation, for Federal purposes as 
provided in Section 7 of this Act and shall be 
allocated in accordance with this title. i^ix ty 
percent of the funds deposited into the special 
account shall be available, without further 
appropriation, to t h e Htates and through the States 
local governments as provided in Section 6 of this 
Act." 



3101 Park Center Drive • Alexandria, Virginia 22302 • 1703) 820-4940 



82 



Am.-n-^ p^f" ". line ?1 1:0 roafl r-s follows: 

" Fnrt pral p o rtl on of 'f)unds from the special account 
i". Tccorflinco with ♦hf" priority." 

W" will, of course bo pleased to work with staff to 
further to discuss our rfcomionditions. 




'fyr^J^/i^-^^ 



Pn rry ^5 . (Mnd al 1 

Director of Public Affairs 



:c I'on. Dale Bumners 
Hon. Malcolm Wallop 



77-689 115 



83 



mzked to indicate amencJments propDsed by 
National Itecreation and Park Association. 



100th CONQKESS 
18T Session 



S.735 



To uncnd the Land ind Water Ooniervmtion Fund Act of 1965, and for other 

purpoaet. 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

Uakcb 12. 1987 

Mr. Johnston introduced the following bill; which was read tviice and referred 

to the Committee on Energy and Natural Besources 



A BILL 

To"amend the I^d and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965,- " 
and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa- 

2 lives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 

4 as amended, is further amended bj adding the foDowing new 

5 title: 

6 "TITLE m— SPECIAL ACCOUNT 

7 "Sec. 301. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of 

8 law, all revenues received from competitive bids, sales, bo- 

9 nuses, royalties, rents, fees, interest charges or otiier income 
10 derived from the leasing of oil and gas resources within units 



84 



1 of the 2saiionaI WlJdlife Refuse System pursuant lo leases 

2 issued after the date of enactment of thi? title shall be di s irii > - 

3 uted ar followt: ^POsited in the Rmd. 

4 "(1) 50 per oontum to the Stutf in -B-hirh thp 

5 Tpfiif'p unit IB Innnted: 

6 "(?) ?5 p""" ''^"^""' "Tf'i'tpi^ into the fund: and 

7 "(8) 2o por c e ntum to giisprllnnenus rfreipty in 

8 t>ip TVpn'siin-. 

9 "(b)(1) MonevE deposited into the fund pursuant to sub- 

10 section (a) shall be credited to a special account within the 

11 fund. In addition, there shall also be deposited into this spe- 

$400,000,000 , , . , , 

12 cial account, !?ifinmnnnn j,pt annum to be denved from 

13 those moneys comprising the authorized but unappropriated 

14 balance of the fund. 

15 "(2) Tunas deposited mto the special account shall be 

16 available, -srithout further appropriation, for Federal purposes 

17 as provided in section 7 of this Act and shall be allocated in 

18 accordance vdih this title, sixty percent of the funds deposited into the special account 

, , , . . r ^' Shall be available, with- 

19 "Sec. 302. (a) At the tune of the submission of tne 



20 President's budget, each Federal land managing agenc}- eligi- 

21 ble to receive moneys from the fund shall pro\'ide the Com- 

22 mittee on Appropriations of the United States House of E-ep- 

23 resentatives and the United States Senate with a list, in de- 

24 scending order of priority, of land acquisition projects (herein- 

25 after in '.his title referred to as the 'prioritj- list'). 



out furthur appropriation, 
to the States, and through 
the States, local gav/errment 
as Drovided in section 6 of 
this Act: ■-•-•■••••-■■ - ■.■■■.■■-■ • ■ 



E 73S IS 



85 



3 

1 "(b) The prioritT lists shall be prepared by the Directors 

2 of the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Ser\-ice, 

3 Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior, and 

4 the Chief of the Forest Service, United States Department of 

5 Agriculture, and shall reflect their best professional judgment 

6 regarding the land acquisition priorities of such bureau or 

7 agency. 

8 "(c) In preparing such lists the following factors shall be 

9 considered: the amount of money anticipated to be made 

10 available in any one year; the availability of land appraisal 

11 and other information necessary to complete the acquisition 

12 in a timely manner; the potential adverse impacts on the 

13 park, -wilderness, wildlife refuge or other such unit which 

14 might result if the acquisition is not undertaken; and such 

15 other factors as the land managers deem appropriate. 

16 "Sec. 303. (a) The Secretary of the Treasur}- shall 

17 notify the Appropriations Committees of the Congress on an 

18 annual basis as to the amounts available for allocation •within 

19 the special accoimt established pursuant to this titie. 

20 "(b) The Appropriations Committees shall allocate the 
Federal portion of 

21 /funds from the special account in accordance with the priority 

22 lists submitted pursuant to section 302(a) unless such lists are 

23 speciScaUy modified in appropriation Acts or reports accom- 

24 panying such Acts. 



6 73S IS 



86 



4 

1 "(c) In aliocatmg funds from the special account among 

2 land managing agencies the Appropriations Committees shall 

3 ensure that each agency receives a fur and equitable share in 

4 accordance uith land acquisition needs, congressional direc- 

5 tives, and historical patterns of distribution of the fund: Pro- 

6 vided, That no agency shall receive more than 50 per centum 

7 of the funds available from the special account in any one 

8 year. 

9 "(d) In the event that the Appropriations Committees 

10 fail to allocate the funds from the special account, the Secre- 

11 tary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to make such 

12 funds directly available to the land managing agencies to be 

13 used solely for land acquisition projects on the respective pri- 

14 ority lists in accordance •with the following formula; 

15 "40 per centum to the National Park Ser\-ice; 

16 "40 per centum to the Fish and Wildlife Ser\'ice; 

17 "15 per centimi to the Forest Ser»-ice; and 

18 "5 per centimi to the Bureau of Land Manage- 

19 ment.". 

O 



87 

The Chairman. Mr. Jarvis with the National Park and Conserva- 
tion Association. 

STATEMENT OF T. DESTRY JARVIS, VICE PRESIDENT, CONSERVA- 
TION POLICY, NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSO- 
CIATION 

Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will summarize my 
statement very briefly. 

We have three essential concerns about S. 735. The first is the 
relationship of this legislation to a comprehensive revitalization of 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The second is its single 
agency focus, the provision in the bill that relates to revenue cap- 
ture from refuge leasing; and the third is the potential impact on 
the management of the national wildlife refuge system. 

Separating the two provisions of your bill, I would say that we 
appreciate your desire to resolve the unmet need for land acquisi- 
tion. We share that concern and we want to work with you to 
arrive at a mechanism to do that. 

We support the concept behind the $160 million earmarked floor 
in an acquisition program, but feel that that should be considered 
in the context of a more full, more comprehensive review of the 
whole land and water fund program and its revitalization along the 
lines that the President's Commission suggested. 

You have in your files a letter from a coalition of conservation, 
recreation, and historic preservation groups, of which my associa- 
tion is one, that recommends a series of things that might be done, 
of which such a floor automatic fund would be one element. 

We think it should be considered in the context of the broader 
revitalization of the fund. 

Second, I would say with regard to the single agency focus of the 
refuge provisions in the bill, I would cite a General Accounting 
Office report of June of 1984. If you recall at the time, throughout 
much of 1983 former Secretary of Interior Watt was hell-bent to 
lease the wildlife refuges without much regard to criteria. 

The Congress got very concerned, passed on the continuing reso- 
lution that year a provision halting any refuge leasing until the 
Department developed an EIS and a comprehensive set of regula- 
tions. 

Secretary Clark then as he came in as the new Secretary of the 
Interior issued a policy statement that there would be no more 
leasing on units of the wildlife refuge system, and therefore the De- 
partment was not going to do the regs and the EIS. 

And that policy is still in effect today under Secretary Hodel. 

The Chairman. And there is certainly no intent to change that 
policy. 

Mr. Jarvis. I understand that. 

As of the date of this GAO report, the GAO says that about $7 
million in revenues from oil and gas receipts were collected in 
fiscal 1983 from 13 units of the wildlife refuge system. About $4.5 
million of that $7 million came from the Kenei refuge in Alaska. 

Currently, Kenei is the only refuge in Alaska that is leased. 
Other refuges that are currently under this leasing program — the 
Delta National Wildlife Refuge in your state of Louisiana produces 



88 

about $2 million in revenue at present, and the Aransas refuge in 
Texas, the Salt Plains refuge in Oklahoma, Kavira Refuge in 
Kansas, John Clark Saylor refuge in North Dakota, are among the 
others that have ongoing oil and gas activities. 

Nevertheless, the total of that coupled with the prospects, as this 
report cites, it is unlikely to see significant increases in economic 
uses of refuges, and the policy of the Department indicates to us as 
long as the focus remains on the refuge system, a very small 
amount of money potentially. 

We would suggest that if the Congress is going to consider the 
policy of capturing revenues from the leasing of public lands that 
the first priority ought to be on capturing revenues, dedicating 
them to conservation purposes, from the leasing on national forest 
and BLM public lands which operate under a multiple use regime, 
rather than a dedicated or primary purpose, as do refuges and 
parks. 

So that the parallel philosophy with the existing fund, that is as 
you use up one public resource, the OCS oil and gas, a portion of 
the proceeds from that be dedicated to conservation purposes— we 
think we see a direct parallel with the forest and Bureau of Land 
Management public lands, similar to the OCS program as it now 
exists, but feel that the primacy that is placed in wildlife refuges 
upon wildlife protection, habitat protection — and this gets into our 
third area of concern — would put some undue pressure on the 
refuge manager. 

I recognize that your intent is not to do that. The Congressional 
intent would likely not be to do that. Nevertheless, we have seen 
the Department impose performance standards on its managers to 
produce revenues, and that is — at one time a couple of years ajgo, 
park superintendents were judged, their performance evaluation 
was based on their revenue enhancement performance. 

The Chairman. There is certainly no intent to do that here. In 
fact, most of the outlook for this is ANWR. 

Mr. Jarvis. I would just conclude, Mr. Chairman, by saying that 
with a policy of no leasing on refuges and with the desire for a 
comprehensive review of the land and water fund, we suggest that 
you hold S. 735 in abeyance, or at least separate the two concepts 
while a more comprehensive view is taken. 

And we would be happy to work with you on that. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Jarvis follows:] 



89 




STATEMENT OF OF T. DESTRY JARVIS 

VICE PRESIDENT, CONSERVATION POLICY 

NATIONAL PARKS AND CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 
U.S. SENATE 



ON S.735 
JULY 14, 1987 

Good afternoon Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am T. Destry 
Jarvis, Vice President for Conservation Policy of the National Parks and 
Conservation Association (NPCA) . I appreciate this opportunity to testify 
today on behalf of the National Parks and Conservation Association, American 
Rivers, Inc., Defenders of Wildlife and the Humane Society of the United States 
regarding S.735. While we have all been ardent advocates of the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, we do have some serious reservations about this bill, as 
written, which I would like to share with the Committee today. 

As introduced, S.735 would give twenty-five percent of "...all revenues 
received from competitive bids, sales, bonuses, royalties, rents, fees, 
interest charges or other income derived from the leasing of oil and gas 
resources within units of the National Wildlife Refuge System. . . " to a special 
account within the Land and Water Conservation Fund. This special account 
would also receive $160 million annually from the authorized, but 
unappropriated, balance of the Fund. This money would be made available 
without appropriation to federal agencies receiving revenue from the current 
Fund based on a priority ranking of acquisition needs unless the priorities are 
modified by the Appropriations Committees and/or the Committees take 
affirmative action to appropriate the funds. 



National Parks and Conservation Association 

1015 Thirty-First Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20007 

Telephone (202) 944-8530 



90 



We have three major concerns about this bill upon which I would like to 
elaborate today. These are: 1) its relation to other proposed legislation to 
expand and reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund; 2) its single- 
agency focus; and 3) its potential impact on management of national wildlife 
refuges. 

As you know, we are members of a coalition working to expand and 
reauthorize the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We have invested a great 
deal of time studying the current problems with the Fund and have attempted to 
devise alternative strategies to ensure that the Fund lives up to its 
potential. We appreciate your concern for and commitment to securing 
additional revenue for land protection for the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. However, we do not believe that this bill is adequate to the task of 
rejuvenating the Fund. The principal problem with the current fund does not 
relate to a lack of revenue flowing into the fund- -as evidenced by its $5 
billion authorized, but vinappropriated balance- -but to the outflow of funds. 
If the current authorization level is to be retained, we see no reason to seek 
out new or additional sources of funds. The problem with which we are faced 
today is establishing a mechanism which will ensure that the authorized money 
is actually spent to acquire critical conservation and recreation lands. 
Recovering funds from existing or future leasing on national wildlife refuges 
as a supplement to LWCF will not solve this major problem. 

Further, revenue from leasing of national wildlife refuges is likely to be 
a drop in the bucket compared to the total authorized level of the Land and 
Water Conservation Fvind. A 1984 General Accounting Office study, "Economic 



91 



Uses of the National Wildlife Refuge System Unlikely to Increase 
Significantly," found that oil and gas operations on national wildlife refuges 
generated approximately $7 million in 1983. Presently a portion of this money 
is returned to the general treasury to be shared with states under the Mineral 
Leasing Act and a portion returned to refuges to repay expenses incurred in 
leasing or given to counties in which refuges are located as a payment in lieu 
of taxes. We have refrained from considering the special case of the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge in our testimony. Even if oil and gas leasing were to 
increase dramatically on other national wildlife refuges in the System in 
future years, we do not believe that sufficient revenue would be generated to 
compensate for the broader concerns we have outlined below. 

Second, if as a matter of national policy, the Congress determines that it 
would be appropriate to tap revenues from on-shore mineral leasing and 
extraction, then it is our view that this policy should be put in place first 
on general public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management and the 
U.S. Forest Service. On these lands, there is an inherent bias to lease, just 
as there is on the Outer Continental Shelf. While resource conflicts do exist 
on these lands, they are administered primarily for multiple uses. Tapping 
revenues derived from leasing on these lands and dedicating these revenues for 
conservation purposes would parallel the philosophy behind the current LWCF 
program which taps OCS leasing revenue. Still, additional revenue from on- 
shore leasing need only be considered in a scenario which contemplates a vastly 
enlarged LWCF, requiring new funding sources. 

Finally, we have reservations about the impact of this bill on current and 
future management decisions involving leasing of national wildlife refuges. We 



92 



are concerned about the potential effects of this bill on the outcome of the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge debate, however, our concerns extend more 
broadly to the impacts on national wildlife refuges nationwide. The 90 million 
acres in the National Wildlife Refuge System were established as refuges for 
the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife and the preservation of 
wildlife habitat. Enactment of S.735 would undermine this primary purpose of 
refuges by creating an incentive to lease refuge lands. According to their 
legislated purpose, refuges, like units of the national park system, have a 
primary purpose against which all other uses must be tested objectively. 
Secondary uses including oil and gas extraction are allowed in refuges only 
when a determination can be made that "such uses are compatible with the major 
purposes for which such areas were established." (16 U.S.C. 668dd(d) (1) ) . 

This test of compatibility is extremely important. The GAO study found 
that current "compatible" uses are indeed creating management conflicts for 
national wildlife refuges, [p. 13] Further, the study concluded on page 29 that 
the Fish and Wildlife Service does not have adequate data to effectively 
monitor and control oil and gas operations on refuge lands: "Our 
analysis. .. indicated that refuge managers believe oil operations have sometimes 
caused serious damage to refuges; but these impacts are difficult to measure." 
[p. 23] 

In undertaking a determination of compatibility, increased leasing might 
be more likely to occur at the expense of high quality resources if managers 
knew that leasing revenue could be applied toward land acquisition. Agency 
priorities and policy decisions are often controlled by budget and staffing 
needs . A proposed program which offers additional revenue from sources within 
an agency's management discretion is likely to become a priority. "We can get 



93 



the money to buy parcel X if we lease more land on parcel Y," could easily 
become the prevailing attitude. In national wildlife refuges this might result 
in less weight being placed on the environmental effects of leasing and 
associated activities in the drive to increase revenue, particularly in 
response to pressures from 0MB and other sources within the Administration. 
Leasing might occur more often even in situations where professional judgements 
of wildlife managers indicate that it would be undesirable or incompatible with 
the wildlife protection mandate of the Fish and Wildlife Service -- thus 
undermining the purposes for which the System was created. 

For these reasons, we regret that we must oppose further consideration of 
S.735. We appreciate this opportunity to present our views on this bill and we 
will be glad to continue working with you to design a new Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. 



Tl ^on en 



94 

The Chairman. Well, let me say I appreciate your comments. 
They are logical, they are considered. The only problem is I am 
trying to deal with the art of the possible, and the art of the possi- 
ble is we have got a train that may or may not leave the station. 

And that is, the train is named ANWR. And if that train goes 
out without you, you are never going to be able to get a ride on it 
again. 

There are some who would say do not buy a ticket because that 
may make more likely the fact that the train leaves. I do not think 
so, but if you do not have the ticket you are not going to be able to 
come in and cash it in later. 

As you know, this ANWR, if it is put in place, we can come in 
and we can say, well, we ought to have the Great Outdoors Com- 
mission and we ought to have a comprehensive statement and all 
of that, and you will just be tap dancing because 0MB will be 
saying no to everything you say and you will never be able to get 
that revenue again. 

I want to get it while it is possible. 

But aside from that, I appreciate your concerns. 

Mr. Jarvis. I am sure you are concerned about OMB's willing- 
ness to seriously implement this or any other acquisition program. 

The Chairman. OMB would have no choice on this, you see, be- 
cause it is automatic. That is the distinguishing feature of this. 
This is no Land and Water Conservation Fund that is just written 
in the sky somewhere, that fades with the first cloud bank. 

This is automatic. That money comes automatically, and you 
have to repeal the law in order to stop the flow of money. 

Thank you. 

Tim Mahoney of the Sierra Club. 

STATEMENT OF TIM MAHONEY, WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, 
SIERRA CLUB AND CHAIRMAN, ALASKA COALITION 

Mr. Mahoney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am Tim Mahoney, Washington Representative of the Sierra 
Club and Chairman of the Alaska Coalition. I will not repeat a lot 
of our earlier discussions from our hearing on the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge in June. 

I would like to endorse what Mr. Jarvis had to say about the im- 
pacts that such legislation may have on other units of the Fish and 
Wildlife Refuge, Wildlife Refuge System. We do not know, really, 
what those impacts are. 

Mr. Horn did not today have a very comprehensive idea of what 
the impacts might be. But I think we would be very leary of budg- 
etary pressures being leveled at wildlife refuge managers. 

But let me just briefly discuss our position, as a group of people 
who do not want the train to go on ANWR and do not want to buy 
a ticket and do not want anyone else to buy a ticket, either. 

We respect and appreciate 

The Chairman. We want to reserve your rights to dynamite the 
tracks if you can. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Mahoney. We hope that you will be persuaded to protect the 
Arctic Coastal Plain as a part of the wilderness system, and that 
there will be no revenue that would ever accrue under a system 



95 

like S. 735. We are concerned that the possibility of such revenues 
does affect the political debate. 

This year we have already fielded concerns from the Budget 
Committee in both houses, who are concerned and somewhat excit- 
ed about possible revenues from leasing the Arctic Coastal Plain. 

We cannot eliminate that from the debate, but to the greatest 
extent possible we want the Congress to concentrate on the fact 
that this is a de facto wilderness, it is in a wildlife refuge, and it is 
in a state and a part of America's coastline where every other por- 
tion of our coastline has been devoted to oil and gas development. 

But I would also point out that, while the projected revenues 
from bonuses and leases may be very great, they might be a one 
year windfall. The odds on finding no significant oil in the Arctic 
refuge are 81 percent, according to the Department of Interior. The 
odds on there not being another Prudhoe Bay there are 99 percent, 
according to the Department of the Interior. 

But the loss of the wilderness would be permanent, and we are 
chilled by Mr. Horn's suggestion that this really is the only place 
that he could conceive of S. 735 applying. And we are concerned 
that the oil industry representatives, which would not have to pay 
any more for the leases as a result of S. 735, would use a bill like S. 
735 to try to persuade the public that the mitigation of additional 
revenues to the Fish and Wildlife Service, to the other land manag- 
ing agencies, would justify opening this important area. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mahoney follows:] 



96 



STATEMENT OF TIM MAHONEY 

WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE, SIERRA CLUB 

AND CHAIRMAN, ALASKA COALITION 

BEFORE THE 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES 

CONCERNING S. 735 



July lA, 1987 



Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee: 

I am Tim Mahoney, Washington Representative of the Sierra Club and 
Chairman of the Alaska Coalition. The Alaska Coalition consists of 
eighteen organizations which seek legislation to protect the coastal 
plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as wilderness and which 
oppose legislation which would direct the Secretary of Interior to lease 
the coastal plain for possible oil and gas development. The Alaska 
Coalition opposes S. 735, as introduced. 

The bill as introduced provides a mechanism whereby twenty-five 
percent of "all revenues received from competitive bids, sales, bonuses, 
royalties, rents fees, interest charges or other income derived from the 
leasing of oil and gas resources within units of the National Wildlife 
Refuge System" shall be deposited into a special account within the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund. 

Furthermore, $160 million of proposed wildlife refuge energy 
revenues shall be available to the Secretary of the Treasury without 
appropriation (if the Congress fails to appropriate) for acquisition 
projects of the four federal land managing agflncles. 



97 



-2- 



We are concerned that the narrow focus of S. 735 on wildlife refuge 
development could be used as an inducement to offer oil and gas leases 
in refuges where fish and wildlife professionals would not find such 
activity desirable or even compatible with wildlife protection goals. 
Under current law, these public trust lands are acquired and managed 
with an understanding that they are neither self-funding nor managed for 
a high dollar return; they are managed for fish and wildlife resources. 

These pressures could affect land use decisions within the Fish and 
Wildlife Service, an ajency which has historically struggled for budget 
dollars. Or it could be used by an Administration sympathetic to energy 
interests but insensitive to wildlife or wilderness resources to "sell" 
an unwise energy development program to a skeptical public. Or most 
probably, the Office of Management and Budget, within the budgetary 
process, could try to push the agency into developing its lands so that 
other LWCF spending could be averted. 

Specifically, S. 735 would affect the debate most greatly over the 
fate of Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This refuge is the 
only land on Alaska's North Slope not devoted to or available to energy 
production. The coastal plain, first established as part of the Arctic 
Wildlife Range in 1960, is a spectacularly beautiful area of arctic 
tundra wedged between the Brooks Range and the Beaufort Sea. 

We have compared this de facto wilderness with Africa's Serengeti 
Plain because it is habitat for an undisturbed ecosystem dominated by a 
giant herd of migratory caribou, and complete with the predators such as 
wolves, wolverines, and grizzly (brown) bears. It is also home to 
related arctic animals such as polar bears, and migratory waterfowl. 
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service calls the Arctic National wildlife 
■Refuge "the only conservation system unit that protects, in an 
undisturbed condition, a complete spectrum of the arctic ecosystems in 
North America." ( Arctic Refuge Resource Assessment , page 46). The 



98 



-3- 



Service calls the coastal plain (1002 area) "the most biologically 
productive part of the Arctic Refuge for wildlife and.. .the center of 
wildlife activity." (page 46) These two factors make the coastal plain 
unique and irreplaceable among all other areas. 

West of the Arctic NWR are 7 million acres of state lands where 
Prudhoe Bay and other oilfields are on line. To the west of the state 
lands is the National Petroleum Reserve. Offshore, along the llOO-mile 
coastline, are both federal and state leasing programs in the Beaufort 
Sea. 

We are convinced that leasing the coastal plain of the Arctic 
Refuge will destroy the wilderness and will result in irrevocable 
environmental impacts on this last undisturbed arctic ecosystem. 
According to the Department of the Interior, the odds on not finding a 
significant oil find are 81%. The odds on a Prudhoe Bay-size find are 
1%. 

Whether or not S. 735 were enacted would make no difference in the 
bonuses, fees, or royalties which might be paid by petroleum companies 
to the federal government. While these interests would not be adversely 
affected, they would use such a fund distribution arrangement as an 
argument with the public and with the Congress that the monies diverted 
to the LWCF would act as "mitigation" for the environmental impacts of 
development of the coastal plain. 

We believe that the fundamental question facing Congress in the 
Arctic Refuge is whether one parcel of land along America's Arctic coast 
shall remain an undisturbed and vital wilderness or whether it, too, 
will join the other 50 million acres of land on- and offshore which are 
devoted by federal and state law to petroleum development. 



99 



-4- 



Proponents of development try not to face the black and white 
nature of wilderness protection but rather to frame the argument in 
terms of game management and mitigation as if protection of an 
undisturbed ecosystem is not very important to the debate or the 
decision. 

Given that the Arctic Refuge is not yet well known to the American 
public, arguments of financial benefits to other unrelated parks, 
refuges and forests will serve to aid development proponents not only in 
suggesting further "mitigation" but also in their attempts to blur the 
issues facing the Congress. 

We hope that the Congress will study the issues surrounding the 
future of the Arctic Refuge thoroughly and decide the 

wilderness/development issue on its own merits apart from arguments on 
revenue. 

We hope this Committee will not proceed with S. 735 as introduced 
or other legislation which might adversely alter the debate over the 
future of the Arctic Refuge. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 



100 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Mahoney. 
Next we have Lonnie Williams, Vice President of the Wildlife 
Management Institute. 

STATEMENT OF LONNIE L. WILLIAMSON, VICE PRESIDENT, 
WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE 

Mr. Williamson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

There are several things about S. 735 that we support, one of 
course being the dedicated source of funding for the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund activities. However, in our view the 
problem with the Land and Water Conservation Fund at present is 
not the pipe that is going into the top of the fund, but it is an im- 
pediment in the spigot coming out the bottom. 

And therefore, we would oppose the use of revenues from the ex- 
ploitation of oil on natural wildlife refuges for Land and Water 
Conservation Fund purposes. We suggest that, however, that we 
not miss the train, as you say, and that the national wildlife refuge 
oil and gas revenues, if there will be any substantial amounts in 
the future, would serve more logically to finance programs that are 
directly and completely related to the purposes for which that 
refuge system was established. 

As an alternative, we would recommend that the Committee sup- 
port investing future oil and gas revenues into financing such 
things as a North American waterfowl management plan, imple- 
menting the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, paying in 
lieu taxes to county, borough, and parish governments, and serving 
other purposes of the refuge system. 

One way that we would suggest be considered to do that is, in- 
stead of directing any future moneys that might come as a result of 
oil and gas development to the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund, is to direct it into the migratory bird conservation fund, 
where special accounts, if the Congress so chooses, could be set up 
whereby the various programs related to the national wildlife 
refuge system could be considered for financing or could be fi- 
nanced from. 

And some of these big ticket items, such as you well know, the 
North American waterfowl management plan, there is going to 
have to be some kind of windfall, as what one might anticipate 
from an oil and gas exploration, before these kinds of things can 
ever be funded, especially in today's climate that you gentlemen 
have to live with as far as the budget is concerned. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement and a subsequent submittal from Mr. 
Williamson follow:] 



101 

Wildlife Management Institute 



Dedicated to Wildlife Since 1911 

Suite 725, 1101 14th Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

202/371-1808 



Statement of Lonnie L. Williamson 
before the 
Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 
on 
S. 735 (Amendment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act) 

July lA, 1987 

Mr. Chairman: 

I am Lonnie L. Williamson, vice-president of the Wildlife Management 
Institute. Headquartered In Washington, D.C, the Institute Is staffed by 
professional resource managers and has been dedicated since 1911 to the resto- 
ration and Improved management of wildlife. We appreciate the opportunity to 
present our views on S. 735. 

The Institute supports language in S. 735 that would establish a dedicated 
source of financing for federal Land and Water Conservation Fund activities. 
We also appreciate the provision that would require recipient federal agencies 
to maintain "priority lists" of lands that they need to acquire for improving 
their programs. And, we agree with the idea that funds from the unappropriated 
balance of LWCF be made available for land acquisition purposes. However, we 
oppose the use of revenues generated by resource exploitation on national 
wildlife refuges for LWCF purposes. 

The National Wildlife Refuge System, as well as other programs which 
support the purposes of that system, is in dire need of financial support. 
For example, funds have not been generated in recent years for the System to 
pay more than about half of its In-lieu tax debt to county, parish and borough 
governments. This situation creates antagonism toward existing refuges and 
future refuge system expansion. The need to acquire wetlands and other areas 



102 



for migratory birds and endangered species far exceeds available funds. The 
North American Waterfowl Management Plan, which has been signed by the U.S. and 
Canada, must be expedited if this continent's waterfowl and associated nongame 
species are to survive in appreciable numbers. The Fish and Wildlife Conservation 
Act of 1980, a statute aimed specifically at preserving the nation's nongame 
wildlife, has never been funded. 

We suggest that national wildlife refuge oil and gas revenues would serve 
more logically to finance these programs which are directly and completely 
related to the purposes for which the refuge system was created. After all, 
refuges are wildlife lands, and any habitat degradation that may occur from oil 
and gas development on those areas is particularly damaging to migrating wildlife 
nationally and internationally. Thus, using revenues generated from refuge 
petroleum extraction to enhance the country's wildlife seems most appropriate. 

Therefore, we urge that refuge revenues not be separated in large part 
from the refuge system by diverting them to the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. As an alternative, we recommend that the Committee support investing 
future refuge oil and gas revenues into financing the North American Waterfowl 
Management Plan, implementing the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980, 
paying in-lieu taxes to county, borough and parish governments and serving 
other purposes supportive of the refuge system. 

We suggest that the Committee consider melding S. 735 with a subsequently 
introduced bill, S. 1338. The result could establish a dedicated $1 billion 
Land and Water Conservation Fund from offshore oil lease receipts and possibly 
taxes on large real estate transfers and conservation bonds as recommended in 
S. 1338. 

Mr. Chairman, we applaud and support the Committee's effort to assure 
financing for the Land and Water Conservation Fund during these difficult 
budgetary times . 



103 




LAURENCE R. JAHN 

Presidem 

tONNIE L. WILLIAMSON 

Vice-President 

DANIEL A. POOLE 

Board Chairman 



Wildlife Management Institute 

Suite 725, 1101 14th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20005 • 202/371-1808 



July 16, 1987 



The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston, Chairman 
Conunittee on Energy and Natural Resources 
United States Senate 
Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Senator Johnston: 

This letter responds to your request for specific suggestions on legis- 
lation to redirect future national wildlife refuge oil and gas revenues. 

We agree with your assessment that a mechanism for distributing some of 
the refuge oil and gas revenues to land acquisition and management programs 
should be enacted before a decision is made on developing Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge petroleum. However, we feel strongly that such revenue ought 
to be invested in wildlife restoration and enhancement which support refuge 
system purposes, rather than goals of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

As I mentioned at the hearing, LWCF' s problem is not a lack of funding 
going into the program. Instead, it is the absence of a trust arrangement 
whereby the $900 million per year from offshore oil leasing and other sources 
is isolated and automatically made available to state and federal agencies. 
Your provisons in S. 735 to create a "special account" with guarantees of 
appropriation or allocation would fill that need, and we urge you to pursue 
such a refinement for LWCF. 

With regard to refuge oil and gas receipts, we recommend that legislation 
be considered to accomplish the following: 

A) Establish a "special trust fund" in the Migratory Bird Conserva- 
tion Account (MBCA); 

B) Distribute all revenues received from competitive bids, sales, bonuses, 
royalties, rents, fees, interest charges or other income derived from oil and 
gas leasing within the National Wildlife Refuge System as follows: 

(1) 50 percent to the state in which the refuge is located; 

(2) 40 percent to the MBCA "special trust fund"; 

(3) 10 percent to the federal treasury. 



DEDICATED TO WILDLIFE SINCE 1911 



104 



Hon. J. Bennett Johnston -2- July 16, 1987 

C) Establish a per-barrel access fee for oil, and a comparable amount 
for gas, taken from refuges, with all of the receipts deposited directly into 
the MBCA trust fund. 

D) Instruct the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission and the U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service to divide the "special trust fund" into three accounts 
with: 

(1) 50 percent of the fund dedicated to implementing the North American 
Waterfowl Management Plan. Authority should be given to the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service for investing a portion of the funds in Canada, as required by 
the Plan. When the plan is fully implemented, any monies accruing to the 
account should revert automatically to normal land acquisitions approved by the 
Migratory Bird Conservation Commission; 

(2) 35 percent of the fund dedicated to implementing the Fish and Wild- 
life Conservation Act of 1980 and transferred to the Federal Aid Division in 
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for that purpose; 

(3) 15 percent of the fund dedicated to implementing the Service's 
refuge fisheries management plan; 

(4) An equal percentage of all three accounts in the fund debited annually 
and deposited in the National Wildlife Refuge Fund to the extent needed for 
completing in-lieu tax payments to counties. 

As reported at the June 14 hearing, these programs are in desperate need 
of financing and are directly related to the purposes of the refuge system. We 
would be honored to assist with devising a program such as recommended above. 

Best regards. 

Sincerely, 





(MUUM'>^ 



Lonnie L. Williamson 
Vice-President 



LLW:dt 



105 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Williamson. 

And let me repeat again that, if we enact 735 into law, it would 
be my intention to come back and have that comprehensive review 
that we have talked about as to that all of these uses. And as a 
strong supporter of waterfowl management, I would certainly want 
very carefully to consider your recommendations as to that. 

Finally, we have Jack Berryman, Executive Vice President of the 
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 

STATEMENT OF JACK H. BERRYMAN, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESI- 
DENT, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE 
AGENCIES 

Mr. Berryman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

First, I want you to know our Association is ready to work with 
the members of the Committee and others to assure reauthoriza- 
tion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund and the amend- 
ments that will increase the fund's capability for the acquisition of 
needed lands. 

We are very supportive of the concept of establishing an auto- 
matic appropriations mechanism that will utilize the unexpended 
funds. Also, we are supportive of the idea of the federal agencies 
maintaining priority lists. 

Now, we do not agree with the proposal to take revenues from 
the refuge system and make them available to other federal agen- 
cies for land acquisition, for the reasons Mr. Williamson just 
stated. 

The refuge system has vast unmet needs. In addition, there is 
great need to support the North American waterfowl management 
plan, and we, along with others, have made suggestions on the uses 
of funds that might become available if the Arctic National Wild- 
life Refuge is indeed opened to exploration. 

And it is our strong belief that a very significant portion of these 
revenues should be dedicated to the purposes for which the nation- 
al wildlife refuge system was founded, and this includes the North 
American waterfowl management plan, the development of fishing 
opportunities on the refuges, and funding for the Non-Game Act. 

And a copy of that statement is submitted for the record. 

If I may, finally, we just appreciate the opportunity to comment 
and we look forward to working with you, subject to the concerns 
we have expressed. 

Thank you, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Berryman follows:] 




106 



International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

■C'ljnr.ci'J ,:.■;; ' (02) 

STREET LOCATION: 1325 Massachusetts Av., N.W. (202) 639-8200 
MAILING ADDRESS: 1412 16lh St., N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036 

Jack H. Bwiyman. Execiillw VIca Presktom 

STATEMENT OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSXIATION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE AGENCIES 

BEFORE THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY & NATURAL RESOURCES 

ON AMENDMENT TO THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (S. 735) 

July 14, 1987 

by 

Jack H. Berryman, Executive Vice-President 

The International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, founded 
in 1902, is a quasi -governmental organization of public agencies charged 
with the protection and management of North America's fish and wildlife 
resources. The Association's governmental members include the fish and 
wildlife agencies of the states, provinces and federal governments of the 
U.S., Canada, and Mexico. All 50 states are members. The Association 
has been a key organization in the promotion of the principles of sound 
resource management and the strengthening of federal, state and private 
cooperation in protecting and managing fish and wildlife and their 
habitats in the public interest. 



The Association is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on a 
proposed amendment to the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Fund has 
been a valuable and important tool for acquisition of federal and state 
public lands. Much of these lands have benefitted fisheries and wildlife 
by protecting much needed habitat. 

The Association is pleased that members of Congress are supporting 
the continued acquisition of lands and waters for the benefit of fish and 
wildlife and the millions of Americans that continue to enjoy these 
public resources in various ways. The several bills that seek to 



107 



-2- 
reauthorize and/or amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund are ample 
proof of the interest of many members. The Association is ready to work 
with members of this Committee and others to assure reauthorization of 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund and amendments that will increase 
the Fund's capability for acquisition of needed lands. 

We are especially supportive of the concept of establishing an 
automatic appropriation mechanism that will utilize unexpended LWCF 
funds; also to require federal agencies to maintain "priority lists" of 
lands they consider necessary for program involvement. 

The Association does not agree with proposals to take revenues from 
the refuge system and make them available to other federal agencies for 
land acquisition. The refuge system has vast unmet needs for operation 
and maintenance. The system also needs expansion to meet the goals of 
wetland preservation, as well as the needs of the North American 
Waterfowl Management Plan. The National Wildlife Refuge System is 
enjoyed by all citizens and in many different ways. It serves the needs 
of public resources and is indeed a national heritage. 

Further, this Association, and several others, have already made 
suggestions on uses of funds that would be available if the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, which offers the only significant opportunity 
for revenues, is opened to exploration. A significant portion of those 
revenues should be dedicated to the purposes for which the National 
Wildlife Refuge was founded, including: funding of the North American 



108 



-3- 
Waterfowl Management Plan; expansion of the National Wildlife Refuge 
System; enhancement of the refuge fishery program; and additional funding 
of fish and wildlife management programs, including the Fish and Wildlife 
Coordination Act. A copy of that statement is attached for the record. 

We appreciate this opportunity and commend the Comnittee for its 
efforts to assure continuation of this important source of funding. The 
Association will be considering the several proposals that relate to 
refuge revenues at its annual meeting in September. 

Thank you. 



109 



ACCOMMODATING FISH AND WILDLIFE NEEDS FROM POTENTIAL ENERGY RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT 

ON THE ARCTIC NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 

-AN OPPORTUNITY- 

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is one of the largest wildlife 
refuges in the world. In addition to its abundant and valuable fish and wildlife 
resources, ANWR may also contain very large reserves of oil and gas resources. 

This brief statement represents the collective perspective of several natural 
resource conservation/professional organizations, whose representatives recognize 
that assessing the national need for energy reserves that may be under the Arctic 
Coastal Plain is not within their collective expertise. Within these 
organizations, however, considerable insight and expertise exist on the needs and 
management of fish and wildlife resources of the Arctic Coastal Plain, as well as 
other areas of this Nation. 

ANWR is a unique and significant part of the world's most advanced wildlife 
refuge system. The National Wildlife Refuge System was established to meet the 
immediate needs for migratory waterfowl at a difficult time; it also looked to the 
future of a wide variety of fish arid wildlife resources. 

A decision to open ANWR to oil and gas development should not be taken unless 
the adverse impacts on the refuge's fish and wildlife resources are minimized and 
unless a substantial portion of the revenues generated are used for fish and 
wildlife enhancement. 

If the Congress determines that exploration and extraction on ANWR are in this 
Nation's best interest, the resulting revenues must contribute to fish and wildlife 
conservation. There are several valuable needs that must be served from the 
various revenues that may be generated. Quite simply, we believe that a reasonable 
portion of the revenues must be identified for fish and wildlife management 
purposes. 

The foremost need is to further the purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge 
System. Needs in this arena include: 

1. Funding of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan . This plan 
represents several decades of effort by the United States Fish and Wildlife 
Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, state fish and wildlife agencies 
and cooperating organizations. It is a comprehensive statement of needs 
for viable waterfowl populations. It identifies needed research and survey 
work, but most importantly, stresses that acquisition of important habitats 
is a top priority for the migratory waterfowl resource of this continent. 

2. Expansion of the National Wildlife Refuge System. The System meets the 
needs of many species of migratory birds, as well as many other wildlife 
species. It also is enjoyed and visited by more than 30 million Americans 
each year. To meet the continuing habitat requirements and the educational 
needs of citizens interested in wildlife, the System must be expanded. 

3. Enhancement of the refuge fishery program . The extensive wetlands, lakes, 
ponds and riverine systems within the National Wildlife Refuge System also 
provide valuable fishery habitats and fishing opportunities. Enhancement 

of the fishery program on the System is needed to expand its use, build a 
broader constituency and meet the demands of the growing sport fishery in 
this Nation. 



110 



4. Additional funding of fish and wildlife management programs . In 1980, the 
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act was passed. This Act recognizes that 
both the federal and state governments have responsibility for all species 
of wildlife and that additional funding is needed for habitat protection 
and balanced wildlife programs. The Act has never been funded even though 
citizen interest and participation in wildlife observation and other 
non-harvest activities continue to increase each year. 

Only a small percentage of Americans are likely ever to experience ANWR first 
hand. We think it is very essential that any returns from the ANWR resource have a 
constructive impact on fish and wildlife resources throughout the Nation, 
particularly in areas more appropriate for public access and enjoyment. 

The organizations indicated believe that a substantial portion of the potential 
oil and gas revenues should and must be earmarked for enhancing and improving 
conditions for fish and wildlife, and that such provision would find favor with the 
public. We would be pleased to work with the Congress to develop and support this 
concept. 



American Fisheries Society 

International Assocation of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

National Wildlife Refuge Association 

Sport Fishing Institute 

Trout Unlimited 

Wildlife Management Institute 



Ill 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Berryman. 

Let me say that one of the problems for using this money for 
management purposes, as opposed to land acquisition, is that the 
fund, if we created it, would then — it might then be used just as a 
substitute for dollars that otherwise were going to be spent on the 
budget anjrway. 

I know about the huge needs, for example, at the national parks 
and at the wildlife refuges for management funds. Indeed, we have 
just passed legislation out of this Committee, enacted into law, to 
increase funds on our parks system to get that management 
money. 

And one of our greatest concerns was that those additional funds 
not replace the annualized budgets, considering the pressure from 
0MB and others. So that is our dilemma with respect to manage- 
ment funds. 

But I really think if we have a fund to manage, which 735, or a 
potential fund to manage, which 735 would give us, then we could 
consider that overall management plan, overall reconsideration of 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, and all of these various 
competing uses. 

Local funds — I mean, local match for parks and recreation, have 
been a very strong priority of mine that ought to fit into the propo- 
sition somewhere, and I think it could. I think it deserves a thor- 
ough airing and a thorough debate. 

But I get back to the basic purpose of S. 735 is not to move 
ANWR, as those of you who have seen our hearings here — I stated 
before the hearings and during the hearings and at all phases of 
those hearings that I personally, and I hope the Committee, would 
keep a completely open mind and listen to all of the evidence pro 
and con before any decisions of any kind are made. 

And I hope the Committee will do that, and I think they have. I 
mean, obviously some Committee members have their points of 
view, but I think most Committee members are very carefully con- 
sidering this question. 

And I think it is possible for a Committee member and a 
member of Congress to consider what you might use the funds on 
S. 735 or the ANWR funds for. You can consider that without that 
influencing what you do on ANWR. 

If you think about it, there are two alternatives: first, to consider 
it as part of the ANWR legislation as it comes up. Then everybody 
can come in and say, well, we had a compromise here, we gave a 
little bit to the environmental community, and we compromised it 
and allowed the drilling to proceed. 

Or the second alternative, which is the worst of all worlds, is just 
to ignore it altogether, let the train leave the station, and then 
come back next year and say: Well, why don't we increase the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund to a billion dollars and take it 
out of — where? 

You know, then you try to break the bank with 0MB. You are 
not going to have the Department of the Interior and the Depart- 
ment of Agriculture coming in and saying, we are taking no posi- 
tion with respect to your bill. They are not going to be saying that. 

If you have already passed the legislation, then they are going to 
be saying: We have got the needs of the old folks who have to have 



112 

nutrition, we have got the needs of education, and you can go right 
down the Utany list. And when you go down that Ust, as much as I 
believe in parks and recreation and wildlife refuges and all of those 
needs, it is hard to grab somebody else's money for those needs. 

And I have tried to do it, lo these many years, with only occa- 
sional success. 

So now that we have got everybody in the mood, the Administra- 
tion says: Well, we do not know, we may not be for it, but go 
ahead, we will look the other way. For gosh sakes, let us do it and 
then forget about it and not let that influence at all what we do on 
ANWR. 

And after all, you may win the battle this year on ANWR, and 
next year there may be an energy crisis, or the year after that, or 
maybe five years from now, and we will be awfully glad that we 
have something in place to give us these funds if that happens. 

I am not asking, really, for the support of the environmental 
community, because I well understand that you cannot be per- 
ceived as making, in effect, a compromise. But if you will, all of 
you have made your positions clear. I have got a letter with virtu- 
ally every environmentalist in the country. 

And by the way, I appreciated the words of praise in the letter. It 
is only the conclusion that I disagree with. [Laughter.] 

The Chairman. But this is the most gilt-edged list of environ- 
mentalists in the whole country, including my son's boss is on here. 

So I hope, that position having been made clear, you will let us 
go ahead and pass it if we can. And as I say, then consider ANWR 
in a completely dispassionate and uninfluenced arena and point of 
view. 

Gentlemen, we always appreciate your testimony and your 
advice. 

I do have an amendment vote that I have to go to, after which I 
will go to the 302(b) allocation. 

If there is anything that you think of after this hearing that you 
want us to consider in writing or orally, please let us know. In 
other words, you may continue to oppose the bill, but say, just in 
case it passes we would like for you to redo it in this way or that. 
We would like that advice. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 



APPENDIX 

Additional Material Submitted for the Record 




'DED\^^ 



THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE T. FRAMPTON, JR., PRESIDENT, TO THE PUBLIC 
LANDS, NATIONAL PARKS, AND FORESTS SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE SENATE 
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCE COMMITTEE REGARDING THE LAND AND 
WATER CONSERVATION FUND, JULY 14, 1987. 



The Wilderness Society appreciates this opportunity to 
submit its views on Senate Bill 735, "Amendnents to the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund," for the hearing record of 
July 14, 1987. The Wilderness Society is a national conserva- 
tion organization with over 175,000 members nationwide. The 
Wilderness Society joins the Alaska Coalition, the National 
Parks and Conservation Association, and other major conservation 
organizations in strongly opposing S. 735. 

The Society appreciates the efforts of the bill's author, 
the distinguished Chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources 
Committee, Senator Bennett Johnston, to assure a steible source 
of funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The bill 
provides a mechanism whereby twenty-five percent of "...all 
revenues received from competitive bids, sales, bonuses, royal- 
ties, rents, fees, interest charges or other income derived from 
the leasing of oil and gas resources within units of the 
National Wildlife Refuge System..." shall be deposited into a 
special account within the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In 
his statement accompanying introduction of the bill. Senator 
Johnston said, "What this really means is if we lease the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska which many think is as rich 
as Prudhoe Bay, we will get dedicated to this fund 25 percent of 
those revenues, whether from bonuses, leases, or royalties, and 
they will come automatically to the fund." Senator Johnston 
went on to say that "this bill does not prejudge what we should 
do with respect to leasing or exploration or development in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." 

S.735's passage will in fact seriously prejudice the debate over 
AMWR. 

We have no doubt that Senator Johnston does not intend 
S. 735 to prejudice or influence Congressional deliberations on 
the fate of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Unfortunately, 
we are convinced that the passage of the bill will be used by 
others to do precisely that, regardless of Senator Johnston's 
good intentions. Passage of the bill would make it easier for 



1400 EYE STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 
(202) 842-3400 

(113) 



114 



many to support opening up the Arctic Refuge to oil and gas 
leasing on the grounds that the damage done to the Refuge is 
compensated for in part by the fact that some of the proceeds 
will be used to save land elsewhere. We oppose this trade-off. 
As we have already testified at length before this Committee, 
the Refuge is the last unspoiled area of its kind in the entire 
Northern Hemisphere, and should be preserved as wilderness. 

S. 735 incorporates a dangerous precedent into the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund by encouraging development of existing 
conservation units. 

The funding mechanism in the bill will result in tremendous 
pressure being placed upon Fish and Wildlife Service personnel 
to lease other xinits of the National Wildlife Refuge System in 
order to generate revenues, even where such leasing is not 
really consistent with the purposes for which the refuges were 
established. It certainly was not Congress' intention in 
setting aside the refuges that they were to serve as fundraising 
mechanisms for federal land acquisition programs. The refuges 
are supposed to protect our fish and wildlife resources, includ- 
ing endangered species. 

S. 735 should be considered together with other legislation 
exploring alternative methods for future funding of the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund. 

The Wilderness Society is actively participating in the 
on-going search within both the conservation community and the 
Congress to find a mechanism which will assure stable funding 
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. It is our firm belief 
that the mechanism of S. 735 is not the answer. The bill should 
be the spark that ignites a series of hearings and debates by 
the Energy and Natural Resovirces Committee over future appropri- 
ation alternatives for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, 
especially in light of other LWCF bills recently introduced in 
the Senate. This hearing should be the first and not the last 
in a series of hearings by the Public Lands Subcommittee to find 
a better mechanism for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

If S. 735 is to be seriously considered by this Ccxnnittee, a 
$160 million level is far too low. 

S. 735 automatically dedicates $160 million a year from OCS 
receipts to federal land acquisition dollars. However, $160 
million of dedicated funds does little in the way of correcting 
the backlog of acquisition projects, and is less than the 
appropriations process has provided in the past 10 years. Last 
year Congress appropriated $185 million in LWCF funds, in a very 
austere budget period. This year the Senate Budget Committee 
reported to the Senate floor a budget resolution containing $250 
million in budget authority for LWCF. The House two weeks ago 



115 



passed its FY' 88 Interior Appropriations bill which contained 
approximately $125 million for LWCF. With possibly higher 
budget allocations in the Senate, there are expectations of 
passing the FY' 88 appropriations for LWCF eJDOve the $160 million 
level. 

Setting an amount of dedicated land acquisition dollars by 
taking an average from the last six years of the Reagan-Watt 
Administration era would not be a step forward in reforming the 
Land and Water Conservation program, but a step backwards. We 
believe the support by the Appropriations Committees in the 
House and Senate to fund LWCF, despite zero administration 
budgets and restrictive budget ceilings demonstrates the will- 
ingness of Congress and the American public to protect and 
preserve our nations' natural and recreational lands. 

For these reasons we oppose S. 735. Thank you for the 
opportunity to comment on this important matter. 



116 



TESTIMONY BY DERRICK CRANDALL, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN RECREATION 
COALITION, BEFORE THE UNITED STATES SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
PUBLIC LANDS AND RESERVED WATER, REGARDING S.735, A BILL TO AMEND 
THE LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND, JULY 14, 1987. -^ 

The American Recreation Coalition is pleased to submit its 
thoughts on proposed amendments to the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund, including those contained in S.735. Our 
organization is a national federation of more than 100 
organizations and corporations with a vital interest in the fund 
and its contribution to outdoor recreation opportunities. 
Moreover, ARC and its staff played an active role in debate by 
and before the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors 
regarding the future of the fund. 

We applaud the initiative of Senator Johnston in bringing 
before this body new ideas for the fund, including the earmarking 
of receipts attributable to oil and gas activities within units 
of the national wildlife refuge system. We share his belief that 
such receipts can and should result in a lasting benefit to 
conservation and recreation. We also share the Senator's 
conviction that some oil and gas development can occur safely 
within some refuges. 

Yet we are not prepared to urge passage of this measure 
because we believe that important debate remains needed on the 
goals of the LWCF or its successor into the 21st century and on 
the mechanisms which are roost likely to achieve those goals. 

Americans today can be proud of joint ownership of the 
world's first and best national park system, a marvelous national 
forest system, extensive refuges for wildlife, a diverse network 
of state, county and local tracts and other public lands. This 
collage of quality outdoors resources is a monument to 
thoughtful, concerned Americans of past generations. The result 
is an unequalled choice of outdoor activities for us today. We, 
in turn, have an obligation to pass on this legacy and to 
contribute to it in a real way. The LWCF, or its successor, can 
be a vital tool in making this contribution. 

We would offer three goals for the revised fund: 

• it should enable us to protect and improve the existing 
federal land systems, especially through acquisition of 
lands and interests in land within designated unit 
boundaries . 

• it should assist in addressing the need labeled as the 
most pressing by the President's Commission on Americans 
Outdoors: open spaces in and around our urban areas. 

• it should assist in the development of those facilities 
and features which are needed to maximize the enjoyment of 
the outdoors, from trails to swimming areas. 



117 



TESTIMONY BY DERRICK CRANDALL 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND AMENDMENT 

PAGE TWO 

To achieve these goals, we believe some new approaches can 
be taken. First, negotiations for the purchase of land, or 
interests in land, are often protracted undertakings. Moreover, 
negotiations can occur only when the prospective buyer has a 
means to consummate the sale. For this reason, we strongly favor 
a true trust fund, with a dedicated source of revenues and a 
multiple year appropriation authority. While unusual, funds of 
this type do exist, and even exist in the natural resources 
field. Both the Pittman/Robertson Trust Fund and the Aquatic 
Resources Trust Fund (better known as the Wallop/Breaux Trust 
Fund) are such examples. Sources and levels of funding for this 
program deserve full discussion, but we support the earmarking of 
a percentage of OCS receipts to this cause. As the nation 
decided through its elected representatives in 1965, it makes 
sense for all Americans to gain a permanent legacy from the sale 
of nonrenewable public resources. 

We urge this committee to consider funding five separate 
programs from this new and strengthened fund: 

• federal land acquisition for all land managing agencies; 

• state and local land acquisition grants, with the federal 
share of total cost ranging up to 50%; 

• federal road maintenance and rehabilitation, for public 
roads not part of state or local road systems; 

• state and local recreation facility and feature 
development loans; and 

• innovation grants for federal, state, local and nonprofit 
recreation initiatives. 

Several of these programs are quite traditional, but several 
represent important departures from past LWCF practices. We urge 
consideration of a permanent diversion of an appropriate sum from 
the Highway Trust Fund to the new trust fund in an amount equal 
to the needs of federally-maintained roads within our lands 
system which are essential for recreational access. We do not 
propose a program to build new roads, but rather a program to 
ensure that the roads which now exist offer safe passage to the 
millions of Americans using them each year. 

We also recommend that the state grants program be modified. 
We find great appeal to the philosophy that a portion of the 
receipts collected from the sale of a nonrenewable resource, in 
this case Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas resources, should 
be reinvested in a way which leaves a lasting legacy. And 
because the greatest need for additions to the legacy we now 
enjoy is for close-to-home areas near our urban centers, we 
believe federal assistance to state and local government efforts 
should be provided. We would like to see this assistance act as 
a catalyst for comprehensive efforts to protect and make 



118 



TESTIMONY BY DERRICK CRANDALL 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND AMENDMENT 

PAGE THREE 

accessible open spaces, including shaping growth. Perhaps the 
federal share of land acquisition projects should be 33% except 
where a jurisdiction has completed a strategic plan for meeting 
its needs. In those cases, the federal match could be higher, 
since many costs would be internalized by the residents of the 
area. We would urge an end to grants for facility development, 
however, since these investments — while critically important — 
are not permanent legacies but depreciating structures. 

The result would be a state grants program with eligibility 
criteria comparable to the federal acquisition program. 

State and local recreation development projects could still 
be aided, though, through a program included in the 
recommendations of the PCAO: a loan program which provides for a 
high percentage of project costs, with no- or low- interest rates 
and designed to allow projects to be completed and, at least in 
some cases, generating fees before payback begins. The permanent 
legacy concept would continue, since loans could be repaid to a 
permanent revolving loan fund. After a period of years — 
perhaps fifteen — loan repayments would be sufficient to 
continue the program without new federal dollars. 

We also strongly endorse the commission's recommendation for 
a new innovation grant program, designed to encourage creativity, 
experimentation and partnerships. Change is a reality in 
America's recreational preferences, and land managing 
institutions often face difficulties in keeping pace with these 
changes. We believe a special innovation grants program, open to 
federal, state and local agencies as well as nonprofits, could 
counteract those difficulties. 

As a final note, we urge the committee to consider the 
earmarking of a specific percentage of OCS receipts to the LWCF 
successor. This strikes us as a fair means to insure that es 
revenues climb, an appropriate increase in revenues will result 
while also assuring that this program will not lay claim to a 
disproportionate share of the receipts during periods of low OCS 
activity. 

A chart displaying the operations of the revised fund is 
attached for the committee's consideration. 

We thank you for your attention to these suggestions. 

Derrick A. Crandall, President 

American Recreation Coalition 

1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Suite 726 

Washington, D. C. 20004 (202)662-7420 



119 



"m 



Western Governors' Association 

600 1 7th Street 
Suite 1 205 South Towei 
Denver. Colorado 80202-5442 
(303) 623-9378 

Telecopier. (303) 534-7309 
Telex, 617668 (WGADVR) 



Norman H Bangeilei 

Governor ol Utah 
Chairman 

Booth Gcndnei 
Governor ol Washington 
Vice Chairman 

PaulM Cunningham 
Executive Director 



July 7, 1987 



The Honorable Dale Bumpers 

Chairman 

Senate Subcommittee on Public 

Lands, National Parks and Forests 
308 Dirksen Senate Office Building 
Washington, D.C. 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 



fS^V 



6^^' 



The Western Governors would like to express their opposition to S.735, 
legislation which would amend the Land and Water Conservation Fimd (LWCF). 
This bill would change a longstanding Federal philosophy regarding the use of 
public lands and may not resolve the constraints which have hindered 
implementation of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

The Minerals Leasing Act of 1920 and the Reclamation Act of 1902 currently 
provide for the distribution of revenues to state governments from oil and gas 
leasing within units of the National Wildlife Refuge system created from 
public lands. Under these laws, our states are entitled to receive 50 percent 
of the rents, royalties and bonuses from leasing, /in additional 40 percent of 
these revenues finance the Reclamation Fund which is used to develop 
reclfunation projects in our states. 

S.735 would reduce the states' share of revenue derived from petroleum 
leasing in National Wildlife refuges by depositing the revenues which would 
have gone into the Recleunation Fund under current law into the LWCF and the 
miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury. 

The Minerals Leasing Act and the Reclamation Act are just two of a number 
of Federal laws which assist wester states by sharing the receipts for the use 
or development of the natural resources on Federal lands within their 
boundaries. These laws reflect a philosophy of land management which Congress 
has consistently applies since the turn of the century. That philosophy 
embodied a compromise in which the Federal government retained, rather than 
disposed of, large areas of public lands within a state's boundaries. In 
exchange, the affected states were to receive a set share of the revenues 
produced from development of those lands. 



120 



The Honorable Dale Bvunpers 
July 7, 1987 
Page 2 



The legislative history of the Minerals Leasing Act of 1920 illustrates 
not only this conscious departure from past practice but also the 
Congressional Intent to limit the Federal share of revenues from leasing. 

We find S.735's alternation of the historic compromise especially 
troubling because in the case of one western state, Alaska, where the revenue 
sharing provisions are part of the Statehood compact between the State and the 
Federal Government. It should be noted that Alaska does not share in the 
Recleunation Fund, but instead receives 90 percent of the revenue directly. We 
believe that unilateral changes to agreements between the Federal government 
and the people of a state are unconstitutional and that such a precedent could 
lead to Congressional alteration of other fundamental provisions of our 
compacts with the Federal Government. 

Finally, insufficient revenue does not appear to be a barrier to full 
implementation of the LWCF. The revenue sources which currently finance the 
fund significantly exceed the $900 million ceiling in current law. Further 
the Federal Government has spent far less than the authorized amount over the 
last decade. For example, the government's actual expenditures over the five 
year period from 1981 to 1985 averaged only $359 million. 

To conclude, we oppose alternation of revenue sharing formulas which were 
intended to compensate states for Federal retention of public lands within our 
states. Further, we do not believe that the proposal is necessary to achieve 
the worthy goals of the LWCF. 

This letter is being sent out on behalf of Governors Steve Cowper (AK), 
Evan Mecham (AZ), George Deukmejian (CA), Roy Romer (CO), John Walhee (HI), 
Cecil Andrus (ID), Ted Schwlnden (MT), Richard Bryan (NV), Garrey Carruthers 
(NM), George Sinner (ND), Neil Goldschmidt (OR), George Mickelson (SD), Booth 
Gardner (WA), Michael Sullivan (WY), and myself. 

Thank you for considering our views on this matter. 

Sincerely, 




(^^'T-t'UiUt /V^ 




Norman H. Bangerter* 

Governor 

Chairman Western Governors' Association 



NHB:ras 



121 



Working for the Nature of Tomorrow^ 

MM^ NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

1412 Sixteenth Street, N.W., Washington, DC. 20036-2266 (202) 797-6800 

July 28, 1987 



The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston . ' ■ 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and v^^ 

Natural Resources 
136 Hart Senate Office Building 
Washington, DC 20510 

Re: Comments of the National Wildlife Federation on S. 735, a 
Bill to Amend the Land and Water Conservation Fund and for 
Other Purposes 



Dear Mr . Chairman : 

The National Wildlife Federation (NWF) would like to provide 
you with comments on S. 735. We are submitting these comments for 
inclusion in the record for the hearing your committee held on 
July 14, 1987, in regard to this bill. 

The NWF is the Nation's largest not-for-profit, conservation- 
education organization, with over 4.6 million members and 
supporters throughout the United States and in 51 affiliated 
state and territory organizations. We have supported the Land and 
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) since its beginning. This fund has 
been a vital source of revenue for the acquisition of wetlands and 
other lands which have enhanced federal fisheries and wildlife 
management programs. In particular, the LWCF has been one of the 
few weapons readily available to fight back against the rising 
tide of wetland loss. 

As you are aware, appropriations from the LWCF have been 
variable over its lifetime, averaging about $596 million from 1976 
to 1980, and $257 million from 1981 to 1986. Title III of 
S. 735 calls for the establishment of a "Special Account" within 
the Fund from which at least $160 million would be appropriated 
automatically each year for federal land acquisition. Creation of 
such an earmarked special account would lend stability to annual 
appropriations from the LWCF. Therefore, the NWF supports the 
concept of an automatic, earmarked appropriation from the LWCF, 
which is embodied in S. 735. 

However, there are several reasons why the NWF cannot support 
this particular legislation. First, the NWF does not support the 
bill's implicit tie to the proposal to extract oil from the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. The "Special Account" of Title III 
would derive part of its income "...from the leasing of oil and 
gas resources within units of the National Wildlife Refuge System 



122 



The Honorable J. Bennett Johnston 
July 28, 1987 
Page 2 



pursuant to leases issued after the date of enactment of 
this title ... ." Based on the large data gaps in the Department 
of the Interior's 1002 Report, the NWF contends that more 
information is needed before a decision on the proposal can be 
reached. Thus, we consider proposals, such as those contained in 
S. 735, for allocating revenues from oil extraction activities to 
be premature. 

Second, oil extraction revenues derived from National 
Wildlife Refuges are unnecessary for improving the effectiveness 
of the LWCF. As you know, much of the annual authorization for 
the LWCF is not appropriated. Congress can change this situation 
at any time by making larger appropriations available or by 
establishing an automatic funding mechanism. The NWF would like 
to see the LWCF gain true Trust Fund status with attendant 
automatic annual appropriations for federal land acquisition. 
Substantial, long-term benefits will accrue to the Nation from 
establishment of such a Trust Fund. This can be achieved without 
adding revenues derived from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 
or any other National Wildlife Refuge, for that matter. 

Finally, should the day arrive when revenues are derived from 
oil extraction on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or other 
National Wildlife Refuges, most, if not all, federal revenues 
should be reinvested into management and expansion of the National 
Wildlife Refuge System. There are many fisheries and wildlife 
funding needs within the System, and revenues derived from the 
System should not be diverted away from these needs . 

The foregoing reflects our view of S. 735. Thank you for the 
opportunity to provide these thoughts. 




Sincerely, 



Lyni|\ A. Greenwalt 
VicAV resident 
ResoKcces Conservation 
Department 



LAG : sm 



o 



77-689 (128) 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 05995 136 6